MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979809231 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.519.519

Epic: A Phase 3 Trial of Ponatinib Compared with Imatinib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CP-CML)

2014· article· en· W2979809231 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey H. Lipton, Charles Chuah, Agnès Guerci‐Bresler, Gianantonio Rosti, David Simpson, Sarit Assouline, Gabriel Étienne, Franck E. Nicolini, Philipp le Coutre, Richard E. Clark, Leif Stenke, David Andorsky, Vivian G. Oehler, Stephanie Lustgarten, Victor M. Rivera, Tim Clackson, Frank G. Haluska, Michele Baccarani, Jörge E. Cortes, François Guilhot, Andreas Hochhaus, Timothy P. Hughes, Hagop M. Kantarjian, Neil P. Shah, Moshe Talpaz, Michael W. Deininger

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPonatinibMedicineImatinibInternal medicineImatinib mesylateMyeloid leukemiaClinical endpointNilotinibOncologyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Ponatinib is an approved potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor active against native and mutated forms of BCR-ABL, including T315I. The phase 2 PACE study demonstrated that ponatinib is highly active in heavily pretreated Philadelphia chromosome‒positive leukemia patients. Ponatinib efficacy and safety were evaluated in newly diagnosed CP-CML patients in the EPIC trial. Methods: EPIC was a multicenter, international, phase 3, randomized, 2-arm, open-label trial of ponatinib (45 mg once daily) compared with imatinib (400 mg once daily) in newly diagnosed CP-CML; patients were stratified by Sokal risk score (low [<0.8] vs intermediate [0.8 to ≤1.2] vs high [>1.2]). On 18 October 2013,EPIC was terminated due to the observation of arterial thrombotic events in the ponatinib development program. Consequently, none of the prospectively defined endpoints could be analyzed. Data as of 1 April 2014 are presented for endpoints that could be analyzed: BCR-ABLIS <10% rate at 3 months; major molecular response (MMR), molecular response (MR)4, and MR4.5 rates at and after at least 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and at any time; time to response; complete cytogenetic response rates at 6 and 12 months and any time; and safety. Results: At the time of study termination, 307 patients had been randomized; median follow-up was 5.1 (0.03-17.6) months. Groups were well-balanced with respect to sex, age, pretreatment, and Sokal score; however, the proportion of patients with 1 or more cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes, obesity and smoking) was higher in the ponatinib arm (n=97, 63%) compared to the imatinib arm (n=79, 52%). Data were available on 306 treated patients (154 ponatinib, 152 imatinib). Fourteen ponatinib and 2 imatinib patients discontinued due to adverse events (AEs). Molecular response rates for ponatinib were uniformly higher compared with imatinib for all response measures and at all time points (Table). The percentage of patients who achieved <10% BCR-ABL at 3 months was significantly higher in the ponatinib compared with imatinib arm overall (Table), and when patients were stratified by high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk Sokal score (Figure). The percentage of patients who achieved MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 at any time in all Sokal risk groups was higher for ponatinib than imatinib (Figure). The most common (≥25%) all-grade treatment-emergent AEs with ponatinib were rash (38%), abdominal pain (36%), headache (33%), constipation (27%), increased lipase (27%), myalgia (26%), and thrombocytopenia (25%); with imatinib, they were nausea (34%), muscle spasms (34%), and diarrhea (27%). Twelve percent of ponatinib and 7% of imatinib patients had grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia; 3% of ponatinib and 8% of imatinib patients had grade 3/4 neutropenia. Serious treatment-emergent AEs (SAEs) occurring in ≥3 ponatinib patients were pancreatitis (n=5), atrial fibrillation (n=3), and thrombocytopenia (n=3); no individual SAEs occurred in ≥3 imatinib patients. Eleven (7%) ponatinib and 3 (2%) imatinib patients experienced arterial thrombotic events, designated serious for 10 [7%] ponatinib and 1 [0.7%] imatinib patient(s). One patient in the ponatinib arm experienced a serious venous thromboembolic event: there were none in the imatinib arm. Ten of 11 ponatinib patients, and 2 of 3 imatinib patients with arterial thrombotic events had 1 or more cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusions: Despite early termination, at a median follow-up of 5 months, preliminary evidence suggests that ponatinib has improved efficacy over imatinib in newly diagnosed CP-CML patients, but has a higher AE rate, including ATEs at the dose studied. Future investigations of ponatinib in the frontline setting will likely use lower doses and account for relevant risk factors. Abstract 519. Table Table: Molecular Response Rates At 3 months At 6 months At 9 months At 12 months At any timePonatinib N=109Imatinib N=114Ponatinib N=69Imatinib N=73Ponatinib N=22Imatinib N=27Ponatinib N=10Imatinib N=13Ponatinib N=149Imatinib N=142MMR, n (%)34 (31)3 (3)43 (62)16 (22)19 (86)9 (33)8 (80)5 (39)61 (41)25 (18)MR4, n (%)8 (7)022 (32)1 (1)14 (64)1 (4)6 (60)031 (21)2 (1)MR4.5, n (%)5 (5)011 (16)07 (32)06 (60)022 (15)0≤10% BCR-ABL transcripts, n (%)103 (94)77 (68) Figure: Patients Achieving <10% BCR-ABL Transcript Levels at 3 Months and Molecular Response (MMR, MR4, MR4.5) at Any Time, by Sokal Risk Score Figure:. Patients Achieving <10% BCR-ABL Transcript Levels at 3 Months and Molecular Response (MMR, MR4, MR4.5) at Any Time, by Sokal Risk Score Disclosures Lipton: Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Teva: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Ponatinib is a BCR-ABL kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of adult patients with CML (all phases) or Ph+ ALL that is T315I-positive or for whom no other TKI therapy is indicated.. Chuah:Novartis, BMS: Honoraria. Assouline:Pfizer, Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Etienne:Novartis, BMS,Pfizer, ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nicolini:Novartis, BMS, ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Le Coutre:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis, BMS, Pfizer: Honoraria. Clark:Novartis, Sanofi Aventis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria; Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis: Research Funding. Stenke:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Oehler:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Advisory board Other. Lustgarten:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rivera:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Clackson:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Haluska:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Baccarani:ARIAD, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Teva: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD, Novartis, BMS: Consultancy. Cortes:ARIAD, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding. Guilhot:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria. Hochhaus:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Hughes:Novartis, BMS, ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kantarjian:ARIAD, Pfizer, Amgen: Research Funding. Shah:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., BMS: Research Funding. Talpaz:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., BMS, Sanofi, Incyte, Pfizer: Research Funding. Deininger:BMS, ARIAD, Novartis, Incyte, Pfizer: Consultancy; BMA, ARIAD, Novartis, Incyte, Pfizer: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; BMS, Novartis, Celgene, Genzyme, Gilead: 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207