MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417342747 · doi:10.1182/blood.2025029210

Asciminib demonstrates superior efficacy and safety in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in the ASC4FIRST trial

2025· article· en· W4417342747 on OpenAlexaff
Jörge E. Cortes, Timothy P. Hughes, Jianxiang Wang, Dong Wook Kim, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, Jiří Mayer, Yeow Tee Goh, Philipp le Coutre, Gabriel Étienne, In Ho Kim, David Andorsky, Felice Bombaci, Ghayas C. Issa, Naoto Takahashi, S. S. Kapoor, Rajendra Jinwal, Kamel Malek, Tracey McCulloch, Lillian Yau, Richard A. Larson, Andreas Hochhaus

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersNovartis PharmaEUSA PharmaAstellas PharmaIncyteSyndax PharmaceuticalsBeiGeneGilead SciencesCelgeneBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaAmgenPfizer
KeywordsDiscontinuationImatinibTolerabilityMyeloid leukemiaImatinib mesylateAdverse effectHazard ratioClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Many patients receiving frontline tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP) experience inadequate disease control and/or adverse events (AEs) that impair quality of life. Treatments offering optimal efficacy, safety, and tolerability will support long-term therapy. In the primary analysis from the ASC4FIRST trial, a phase 3 randomized trial comparing asciminib with investigator-selected TKIs (IS-TKIs) in newly diagnosed CML-CP, asciminib demonstrated superior efficacy vs all IS-TKIs and vs imatinib in the imatinib stratum, meeting both primary objectives. In the secondary analysis (2.2 years' median follow-up), major molecular response (MMR) rate at week 96 was 74.1% with asciminib vs 52.0% with IS-TKIs (treatment difference, 22.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.6-31.3]; 1-sided P< .001) and 76.2% with asciminib vs 47.1% with imatinib in the imatinib stratum (treatment difference, 29.7% [95% CI, 17.6-41.8]; 1-sided P< .001), meeting both key secondary objectives. MMR rate was 72.0% with asciminib vs 56.9% with second-generation (2G) TKIs (treatment difference, 15.1% [95% CI, 2.3-28.0]; 1-sided P< .05), suggesting possible clinical benefit, although the study was not designed to formally confirm statistical significance for this secondary end point. Safety/tolerability remained favorable with asciminib vs IS-TKIs. Dose reductions and interruptions, respectively, occurred with asciminib (18.5%; 46.5%), imatinib (23.2%; 47.5%), and 2G TKIs (54.9%; 63.7%). The hazard ratio for time to discontinuation of treatment due to AEs for asciminib vs 2G TKIs was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.215-0.997). With longer follow-up, asciminib continued to demonstrate a favorable benefit-risk profile over IS-TKIs and imatinib, supporting its potential as a treatment option for newly diagnosed CML-CP. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04971226.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207