MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417069316 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-7300

Real-world data comparison of asciminib 40 mg twice daily vs. 80 mg once daily in chronic myeloid leukemia patients

2025· article· en· W4417069316 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ana Patiño‐García, Yael Morgenstern, Noora Obaidallah, María Agustina Perusini, Dennis Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscontinuationMyeloid leukemiaAdverse effectTyrosine-kinase inhibitorSurvival analysisLeukemiaNilotinibMyeloidClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Asciminib (ASC) is a first-in-class Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP) inhibitor that binds to the ABL myristoyl pocket. In Canada, it is approved for adults with Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP) previously treated with ≥2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) since 2022. Both 40 mg twice daily (BID) and 80 mg once daily (QD) regimens demonstrate equivalent pharmacokinetics thus suggesting similar efficacies in patients (pts) without the T315I mutation. Early data from the ASC4OPT trial suggested both schedules are similarly effective and well-tolerated. Objective: To compare molecular response rates and safety profile of ASC 80 mg QD versus 40 mg BID from real-world experience in CML-CP pts previously exposed to ≥2 TKIs. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study in 51 CML pts treated with ASC as 3rd line therapy or beyond at single center. The dose, either 40mg BID or 80mg QD, was determined by physicians’ discretion and/or pts’preference. Endpoints included dose modification rates, failure-free survival (FFS), and event-free survival (EFS) at 2 years. Treatment failure was defined as loss of molecular response with 2 log reduction (MR2), transformation to accelerated or blast phase (AP/BP), or death. FFS was defined as the time from ASC initiation to treatment failure, while EFS included both failure and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). Major molecular response (MMR; BCR::ABL1 <0.1%IS) at weeks 12 and 24 was also assessed. Achievement of MR2 (BCR::ABL1 <1%IS) and MR4 (BCR::ABL1 <0.01%IS) were also evaluated. Results: Fifty-one pts were included (median age 61 years; range 31–83; 45% female). One pt (2%) received ASC as second-line therapy; most received it as third line (69%), while 30% received it as fourth line or beyond. ASC was initiated due to intolerance (61%) or resistance (39%) to prior TKIs. At baseline, 31% had BCR::ABL1 >10% IS; all were in chronic phase. Twenty-seven pts (53%) received ASC 40 mg BID and 24 (47%), 80 mg QD. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. Dose modifications occurred more frequently in the BID cohort (70% vs. 25%; p=0.001), with similar rates of dose reduction due to AEs (30% BID, 25% QD). Among those who required dose reduction, the majority in both groups were reduced to 40 mg once daily; additional strategies such as reductions to 20 mg QD or intermittent dosing (every other day or alternating doses) were also utilized (7 BID, 6 QD). Grade ≥3 AEs included thrombocytopenia (n=3), musculoskeletal pain (n=3), cardiac events (n=2) (QTc prolongation, premature ventricular contractions), and symptomatic pancreatitis (n=1). Among pts who underwent dose escalation due to suboptimal response (n=6 (22%), all initially on 40 mg BID), 3 pts (5.9%) stopped ASC therapy due to lack of molecular response (2 from QD group, 1 from the BID group). One pt progressed to AP. An additional 5 BID pts who achieved MMR were switched to QD dosing per physician/pt preference. No escalations occurred in the QD group. With a median follow-up duration of 729 days (range 112-2016), the 2-year FFS rate was 96% (95% CI [74–99%]) for BID and 91% [69–98%] for QD (HR 2.46; p=0.463). The 2-year EFS rate was 84% [62–94%] and 82% [58–93%], respectively (HR 1.27; p=0.73). At 24 weeks, MR2 rates were 84% [60–97%] for BID vs. 83% [52–98%] for QD (HR 0.77; p=0.44); MMR rates were 75% [48–89%] vs. 75% [43–95%] (HR 1.03; p=0.08); and MR4 rates were 83% [59–96%] vs. 46% [17–77%] (HR 0.53; p=0.147). Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, both ASC 40 mg BID and 80 mg QD demonstrated similar response rates and favorable AE profiles in CML-CP pts previously treated with ≥2 TKIs, with the limitation of a relatively small sample size. Overall efficacy was well maintained. The QD regimen was associated with fewer dose escalations and discontinuation rate, supporting its convenience and potentially advantageous dosing strategy in clinical practice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207