MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3214248259 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-145995

Post Hoc Analysis of Responses to Ponatinib in Patients with Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CP-CML) By Baseline <i>BCR-ABL1</i> Level and Baseline Mutation Status in the Optic Trial

2021· article· en· W3214248259 sur OpenAlexaff
Michael W. Deininger, Jane F. Apperley, Christopher Arthur, Charles Chuah, Andreas Hochhaus, Hugues de Lavallade, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Elza Lomaia, James McCloskey, Lori J. Maness, Michael J. Mauro, Beatriz Moiraghi, Carolina Pavlovsky, Gianantonio Rosti, Philippe Rousselot, Soledad Undurraga, Vickie Lu, Alexander Vorog, Jörge E. Cortes

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPonatinibMedicineMyeloid leukemiaInternal medicineImatinibOncologyDasatinib

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Ponatinib is a third-generation, pan-inhibitory tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) designed to potently inhibit BCR-ABL1 with or without any single resistance mutation, including T315I. Patients (pts) with resistant disease or with T315I BCR-ABL1 mutations respond inadequately to earlier-generation BCR-ABL1 TKIs, leading to poor survival outcomes. OPTIC (Optimizing Ponatinib Treatment in CP-CML, NCT02467270; ongoing) is a phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of ponatinib in pts with CP-CML whose disease is resistant to 2 or more TKIs or who have a T315I mutation. Here, we present an in-depth post hoc analysis of OPTIC trial pt responses by baseline disease burden and mutation status. Methods: Pts with CP-CML resistant to ≥2 TKIs or with the BCR-ABL1 T315I mutation were randomized to ponatinib starting doses of 45 mg (cohort A; 45 mg → 15 mg), 30 mg (B; 30 mg → 15 mg), and 15 mg (C) once daily. Doses were reduced to 15 mg after achievement of ≤1% BCR-ABL1 IS in cohorts A and B. Pts could re-escalate to their original starting dose for loss of response. The primary endpoint is ≤1% BCR-ABL1 IS at 12 months; secondary endpoints include cytogenetic and molecular responses and safety outcomes. In this analysis, outcomes are analyzed by baseline T315I mutation status and baseline disease burden in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. BCR-ABL1 mutations were assessed by Sanger sequencing at a central laboratory (MolecularMD, Portland, OR, USA). Results: 283 pts were randomized (A/B/C: n=94/95/94). At baseline, 84.1% of pts had a high (>10% BCR-ABL1 IS) disease burden; 23.8% had T315I mutation, 17.0% had a mutation other than T315I, and 57.8% had no mutation. The 45 mg →15 mg cohort showed the highest ≤1% BCR-ABL1 IS response rates by 36 months (Figure 1). Subanalysis of pts across the 3 dosing arms showed that pts with T315I mutations had the highest ≤1% BCR-ABL1 IS response rates (60%) by 3 years with the 45 mg → 15 mg dose compared with the other cohorts, with a trend toward higher progression-free survival (PFS) in the 45 mg →15 mg arm (Table 1). Across all 3 cohorts, 97 pts without T315I mutations (ie, no mutation or with mutations other than T315I) achieved ≤1% BCR-ABL1 IS. Median duration of response (mDoR) for pts with a T315I mutation at baseline was 27 months for pts (n=15) in the 45 mg → 15 mg cohort and 12 mo for pts (n=5) in the 30 mg → 15 mg cohort. For pts without T315I mutations, the mDoR was not reached. Across all 3 cohorts, 79% of pts who achieved ≤1% BCR-ABL1IS maintained this response during the study. A total of 25 patients lost responses (Table 2). Of those who lost response, 11 had T315I, 10/11 dose re-escalated; of those who re-escalated, 6/10 regained ≤1% BCR-ABL1IS after dose re-escalation (Table 2). The most common nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the ITT population for all cohorts combined were arterial hypertension (28%), headache (18%), and lipase increased (17%). The most common hematologic TEAEs were thrombocytopenia (40%), neutropenia (26%), and anemia (19%). Overall, 6.0% of pts experienced a treatment-emergent arterial occlusive event (TE-AOE); 4.6% experienced a Grade ≥3 TE-AOE. Conclusions: Previous analyses established these largely resistant pts achieved high response rates when treated with ponatinib. Consistent with this, the OPTIC post hoc analysis showed clinical benefit across all 3 dosing regimens regardless of T315I mutation status at baseline; the 45 mg →15 mg cohort showed the highest response rates regardless of baseline disease burden (as assessed by BCR-ABL1 IS levels). Regardless of T315I mutation status, most patients were able to maintain their response after dose reduction to 15 mg/day upon achieving BCR-ABL1IS ≤1%. Compared with patients without a T315I mutation, patients with a T315I mutation at baseline were more likely to lose their response upon dose reduction; however, 60% of responses were regained with dose re-escalation. For pts with T315I mutations, PFS was greater with 45 mg → 15 mg dosing compared with the other arms; for pts without T315I mutations, all 3 doses showed robust PFS and OS outcomes. The data presented further support the benefit of using ponatinib post-2nd generation TKI for pts with resistant disease regardless of baseline T315I mutation status. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Deininger: Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Fusion Pharma, Medscape, DisperSol: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Part of a Study Management Committee, Research Funding; SPARC, DisperSol, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Part of a Study Management Committee, Research Funding; Sangamo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Apperley: Incyte, Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Chuah: Steward Cross: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel, Research Funding; Novartis, Korea Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria. Hochhaus: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. De Lavallade: Pfizer, Novartis.: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lipton: Bristol Myers Squibb, Ariad, Pfizer, Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lomaia: Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pharmstandard: Honoraria. McCloskey: Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; COTA: Other: Equity Ownership; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Mauro: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sun Pharma / SPARC: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Moiraghi: Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Pavlovsky: Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Rosti: Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Rousselot: Incyte, Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Undurraga: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Lu: Takeda: Current Employment. Vorog: Takeda: Current Employment. Cortes: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sun Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, BioPath Holdings, Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bio-Path Holdings, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,034

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,004
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207