Baseline Predictors of Response to Bosutinib in Patients with Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Following Resistance or Intolerance to Imatinib Plus Dasatinib and/or Nilotinib.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 2793 Bosutinib (BOS) is an orally active, dual Src/Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). This open-label, phase 1/2 study evaluated the activity and tolerability of BOS 500 mg/d in Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) leukemia following prior TKI exposure. The current analysis investigated baseline characteristics as predictors of major cytogenetic response (MCyR) and complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), and 2-year Kaplan- Meier–estimated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). All included patients had chronic phase (CP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), had developed resistance/intolerance to prior imatinib, and were also either dasatinib resistant (n = 38), dasatinib intolerant (n = 50), nilotinib resistant (n = 27), nilotinib intolerant (n = 1), or resistant/intolerant to dasatinib and nilotinib (n = 3). Median follow-up was 31.4 mo (range, 0.3–66.0 mo). A summary of results is provided in the Table. Longer time since CML diagnosis versus shorter time (median time 6.61 years) was associated with greater OS (2-y probability, 90% vs 79%; log-rank P= 0.0435); however, no association with MCyR, CCyR, or PFS was observed. A lower percentage of Ph+ cells (<95% Ph+ cells vs ≥95% Ph+ cells) at baseline was significantly associated with a higher rate of MCyR (76% vs 23%; P <0.001) and CCyR (65% vs 14%; P <0.001), as well as PFS (2-y probability, 83% vs 68%; log-rank P = 0.0181); no association with OS was observed. Resistance versus no resistance (ie, only intolerance) to prior TKIs was not significantly associated with response or survival, although a numeric trend toward lower rates of MCyR (39% vs 50%) and CCyR (28% vs 50%), as well as 2-y probabilities of PFS (72% vs 89%) and OS (82% vs 91%) among resistant patients was observed. Prior response of at least a minor cytogenetic response (MiCyR) versus no response to first-line imatinib was associated with a higher rate of MCyR (49% vs 28%; P= 0.0375) and a numeric trend toward a higher rate of CCyR (39% vs 20%) on BOS; no trend for PFS or OS was observed. Prior response of at least MiCyR versus no response to second-line dasatinib/nilotinib was associated with higher rates of MCyR (56% vs 19%; P<0.001) and CCyR (48% vs 7%; P<0.001), as well as PFS (2-y probability, 80% vs 64%; log-rank P= 0.0180) and OS (2-y probability, 89% vs 77%; log-rank P= 0.0285) on BOS. While baseline demographic characteristics showed a numerical trend toward lower response and/or survival rates with age ≥65 y and female gender, no trends were statistically significant. There was also no predictive effect for presence of a Bcr-Abl kinase domain mutation at baseline or CP status at onset of imatinib therapy. In conclusion, most evaluated baseline characteristics appeared not to be predictive of response and/or survival on BOS in patients with CP CML and resistance/intolerance to multiple prior TKIs, although at least MiCyR to prior dasatinib/nilotinib and lower percentage of Ph+ cells at baseline were found to be consistently predictive of better outcomes on BOS. n/n evaluable (%) Kaplan-Meier estimate, % n MCyRa CCyRa PFS at 2 years OS at 2 years Age ≥65 y 26 7/22 (32) 5/22 (23) 70 80 <65 y 93 38/88 (43) 30/88 (34) 76 85 Sex Female 66 23/61 (38) 17/61 (28) 77 83 Male 53 22/49 (45) 18/49 (37) 73 86 Time since CML diagnosis * ≥6.61 y 60 23/57 (40) 17/57 (30) 79 90 <6.61 y 59 22/53 (42) 18/53 (34) 71 79 Status at onset of imatinibb Early CP 44 17/39 (44) 15/39 (39) 71 78 Late CP 75 28/71 (39) 20/71 (28) 77 88 Percentage of Ph+ cells at baseline ** ** * ≥95% Ph+ cells 66 15/66 (23) 9/66 (14) 68 83 <95% Ph+ cells 43 28/37 (76) 24/37 (65) 83 85 Baseline Bcr-Abl mutation No 46 18/45 (40) 15/45 (33) 80 88 Yes 40 14/37 (38) 8/37 (22) 77 80 Prior response to imatinib * No response 44 11/40 (28) 8/40 (20) 76 88 At least MiCyRc 60 28/57 (49) 22/57 (39) 78 87 Prior response to dasatinib/nilotinib ** ** * * No response 33 6/31 (19) 2/31 (7) 64 77 At least MiCyRc 67 35/63 (56) 30/63 (48) 80 89 Resistance to prior TKI No 23 10/20 (50) 10/20 (50) 89 91 Yes 96 35/90 (39) 25/90 (28) 72 82 a Cumulative response rates. b Patients were considered to be in late CP at the moment of starting imatinib if they had commenced imatinib ≥6 mo after diagnosis or had received prior interferon therapy; other patients were considered to be in early CP. c Defined as <15% blasts in bone marrow and blood, <30% blasts + promyelocytes in bone marrow and blood, and <20% basophils in peripheral blood with no extramedullary disease other than spleen and liver. * P value <0.05; ** P value <0.001. Disclosures: Cortes: Novartis, Bristo Myer Squibb, Pfizer, Ariad, Chemgenex: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gambacorti-Passerini:Pfizer Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy. Brümmendorf:Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Patent on the use of imatinib and hypusination: Patents & Royalties. Kim:BMS, Novartis, Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Leip:Pfizer Inc: Employment. Kelly:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Besson:Pfizer Inc: Employment. Turnbull:Pfizer Inc, l3/Inventiv Clinical Solutions: Employment. Kantarjian:Pfizer Inc: Research Funding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".