MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417011124 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-1993

ASC4OPT 96-week results: Asciminib once or twice daily continues to be highly efficacious and demonstrates favorable safety in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and suboptimal response, resistance or intolerance to two or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors

2025· article· en· W4417011124 sur OpenAlexaff
Massimo Breccia, Andreas Hochhaus, Philipp le Coutre, Dragana Milojković, Dennis Kim, Soo Min Lim, Carolina Pavlovsky, Thanh Xuân Nguyễn, Franck E. Nicolini, Elena Beatriz Moiraghi, Sebastian Grosicki, Chi Dung Phu, Gabriel Étienne, F. Marco de Lucas, Rosa Ayala, Roberto Abi Rached, So-Youn Park, Peter Schuld, Virginia Pilipovic, Aswin IC, Franz Alisch, Carla Boquimpani, Charles Chuah

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDiscontinuationDosingCohortAdverse effectClinical endpointMyeloid leukemiaClinical trialCohort studyTolerability

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: The primary results of the ASC4OPT study (NCT04948333), assessing asciminib 40 mg twice daily (BID) and 80 mg once daily (QD) in pretreated patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP), showed high efficacy and a favorable safety profile for both dosing regimens. Here we present longer-term results from ASC4OPT. Methods: This Phase 3b, international, non-comparative study in adults with CML-CP without the T315I mutation and previously treated with ≥2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) enrolled two different cohorts. The main cohort included pts not in major molecular response (MMR; treatment failure/warning categories as per European LeukemiaNet [ELN] 2020 or intolerant to their most recent TKI). Dose escalation to 200 mg QD was permitted for pts who did not achieve MMR at Week 48 or lost response between Weeks 48‒108. An exploratory cohort of pts intolerant to their most recent TKI and in MMR at baseline was also enrolled and analyzed separately. All pts were randomized 1:1 to each dosing regimen. The primary endpoint was MMR rate at Week 48 for pts in the main cohort; response rates were assessed separately for the exploratory cohort. Pt-reported outcomes were assessed with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)-CML questionnaire. Results: 169 pts were recruited to the main cohort. At data cutoff (11 February 2025, after the last pt completed their Week 96 visit), treatment was ongoing for 55.0% of pts, 18.3% had reached the end of the study at Week 144 and 26.0% had discontinued treatment; reasons for discontinuation included adverse events (AEs, 7.7%) and unsatisfactory therapeutic effect (5.3%). Four pts in the main cohort had a T315I mutation at baseline, which was detected after treatment start; these pts were excluded from efficacy analyses. MMR rates increased at Week 96 vs Week 48 (43.6% vs 39.4% overall; 45.8% vs 43.4% on 40 mg BID and 41.5% vs 35.4% on 80 mg QD, respectively). Deep molecular response (DMR) rates were maintained at Week 96 vs Week 48 (overall, MR4: 17.0% vs 17.0%; MR4.5: 10.9% vs 10.3%, respectively). Overall, 94.0% and 37.5% of pts in the main cohort experienced any-grade and Grade ≥3 AEs, respectively (94.0% and 32.1% on 40 mg BID, and 94.0% and 42.9% on 80 mg QD, respectively). The most frequent AEs included thrombocytopenia (16.7%), arthralgias (16.1%), COVID-19 and fatigue (13.1% each). AEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 7.1% of pts (40 mg BID, 8.3%; 80 mg QD, 6.0%). Forty pts (23.7%) in the main cohort had their asciminib dose escalated to 200 mg QD (40 mg BID, n=16; 80 mg QD, n=24); at data cutoff, 60.0% remained on treatment and 27.5% had reached the end of the study at Week 144. Among the 5 pts who discontinued treatment, the most common reason for discontinuation was disease progression/loss of response (n=2). At Week 96, 17.5% of these pts were in MMR. Among pts in the exploratory cohort (n=30), treatment was ongoing for 53.3%, 33.3% had reached the end of the study at Week 144 and 13.3% had discontinued treatment by data cutoff. Reasons for treatment discontinuation included AEs (n=2), physician decision and pt decision (n=1 each). At Week 96, 86.7% of pts maintained MMR (vs 93.3% at Week 48); 2 pts had discontinued treatment due to AEs (both on 80 mg QD) before Week 24 and were counted as non-responders. One more pt achieved MR4 in Week 96 vs Week 48 (7/14 at both timepoints on 40 mg BID; 9/16 vs 8/16 on 80 mg QD, respectively). MDASI-CML Symptom and Interference Total scores decreased slightly and quickly at Weeks 4‒12, denoting some improvement in main cohort pts' symptoms and reduced interference with their daily life activities; scores then stabilized. Similar results were observed for pts in the exploratory cohort, although with slightly larger reductions in scores. Two deaths were reported overall, assessed as not treatment related: one on treatment (in the 80 mg QD arm, main cohort, due to stroke) and one that occurred >30 days after the last treatment (in the 40 mg BID arm, exploratory cohort, due to hypoxemic respiratory failure). Conclusions: The 96-week results from the ASC4OPT study further strengthen asciminib as a standard of care for pretreated pts with CML-CP, regardless of dosing regimen, including those who are intolerant to previous TKIs: a considerable proportion of these pts maintained or deepened their response regardless of asciminib regimen.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
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 enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

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 Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · 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

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207