MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPonatinibMedicineMyeloid leukemiaInternal medicineImatinibOncologyDasatinib

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207