A phase 4 study of nilotinib in Korean patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: ENESTKorea

Junghoon Shin, Youngil Koh, Seo Hyun Yoon, Joo-Youn Cho, Dae-Young Kim, Kyoo-Hyung Lee, Hyeong-Joon Kim, Jae-Sook Ahn, Yeo-Kyeoung Kim, Jinny Park, Sang-Kyun Sohn, Joon Ho Moon, Yoo Jin Lee, Seonghae Yoon, Jeong-Ok Lee, June-Won Cheong, Kyoung Ha Kim, Sung-Hyun Kim, Hoon-Gu Kim, Hawk Kim, Seung-Hyun Nam, Young Rok Do, Sang-Gon Park, Seong Kyu Park, Sung Hwa Bae, Hun Ho Song, Dong-Yeop Shin, Doyeun Oh, Min Kyoung Kim, Chul Won Jung, Seonyang Park, Inho Kim, Junghoon Shin, Youngil Koh, Seo Hyun Yoon, Joo-Youn Cho, Dae-Young Kim, Kyoo-Hyung Lee, Hyeong-Joon Kim, Jae-Sook Ahn, Yeo-Kyeoung Kim, Jinny Park, Sang-Kyun Sohn, Joon Ho Moon, Yoo Jin Lee, Seonghae Yoon, Jeong-Ok Lee, June-Won Cheong, Kyoung Ha Kim, Sung-Hyun Kim, Hoon-Gu Kim, Hawk Kim, Seung-Hyun Nam, Young Rok Do, Sang-Gon Park, Seong Kyu Park, Sung Hwa Bae, Hun Ho Song, Dong-Yeop Shin, Doyeun Oh, Min Kyoung Kim, Chul Won Jung, Seonyang Park, Inho Kim

Abstract

Although nilotinib has improved efficacy compared to imatinib, suboptimal response and intolerable adverse events (AEs) limit its effectiveness in many patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP). We investigated the 2-year efficacy and safety of nilotinib and their relationships with plasma nilotinib concentrations (PNCs). In this open-label, multi-institutional phase 4 study, 110 Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML-CP patients were treated with nilotinib at a starting dose of 300 mg twice daily. Molecular responses (MRs) and AEs were monitored for up to 24 months. The 24-month cumulative MR4.5 rate was evaluated as the primary endpoint. Plasma samples were collected from 94 patients to determine PNCs, and the per-patient mean was used to categorize them into four mean PNC (MPNC) groups. Cumulative MR rates and safety were compared between groups. With a median follow-up of 22.2 months, the 24-month cumulative MR4.5 rate was 56.2% (95% confidence interval, 44.0%-8.3%), and the median time to MR4.5 was 23.3 months. There were no significant differences in the cumulative rates of major molecular response, MR4 , and MR4.5 between MPNC groups. One patient died due to acute viral hepatitis, and two developed hematological or cytogenetic relapse, while no progression to accelerated or blast phase was observed. Safety results were consistent with previous studies with no new safety signal identified. Across the MPNC groups, there was no significant linear trend in the frequency of AEs. Nilotinib is highly effective for the treatment of CML-CP with manageable AEs. The measurement of PNC has no predictive value for patient outcomes and is thus not found to be clinically useful. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, Number NCT03332511.

Keywords: CML; molecular response; nilotinib; prognosis.

© 2018 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT diagram. aThese patients comprise the intention‐to‐treat population. PNC, plasma nilotinib concentration; MPNC, mean plasma nilotinib concentration.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative molecular response rates in the intention‐to‐treat population (A) and cumulative MMR (B), MR 4 (C), and MR 4.5 (D) rates in each of the four MPNC groups. MMR, major molecular response; MR 4, molecular response 4; MR 4.5, molecular response 4.5; MPNC, mean plasma nilotinib concentration.

References

    1. Apperley, J. F. 2015. Chronic myeloid leukaemia. Lancet 385:1447–1459.
    1. Hochhaus, A. , Larson R. A., Guilhot F., Radich J. P., Branford S., Hughes T. P., et al. 2017. Long‐term outcomes of imatinib treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 376:917–927.
    1. Hehlmann, R. , Lauseker M., Sauszele S., Pfirrmann M., Krause S., Kolb H. J., et al. 2017. Assessment of imatinib as first‐line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: 10‐year survival results of the randomized CML study IV and impact of non‐CML determinants. Leukemia 11:2398.
    1. Saglio, G. , Kim D.‐W., Issaragrisil S., Le Coutre P., Etienne G., Lobo C., et al. 2010. Nilotinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 362:2251–2259.
    1. Hochhaus, A. , Saglio G., Hughes T., Larson R. A., Kim D. W., Issaragrisil S., et al. 2016. Long‐term benefits and risks of frontline nilotinib vs imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: 5‐year update of the randomized ENESTnd trial. Leukemia 30:1044.
    1. Wang, J. , Shen Z.‐X., Saglio G., Jin J., Huang H., Hu Y., et al. 2015. Phase 3 study of nilotinib vs imatinib in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: ENESTchina. Blood 125:2771–2778.
    1. Hochhaus, A. , Rosti G., Cross N. C., Steegmann J. L., Le Coutre P., Ossenkoppele G., et al. 2016. Frontline nilotinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: results from the European ENEST1st study. Leukemia 30:57–64.
    1. Kantarjian, H. , Giles F., Wunderle L., Bhalla K., O'brien S., Wassmann B., et al. 2006. Nilotinib in imatinib‐resistant CML and Philadelphia chromosome–positive ALL. N. Engl. J. Med. 354:2542–2551.
    1. Giles, F. J. , Yin O. Q., Sallas W. M., le Coutre P. D., Woodman R. C., Ottmann O. G., et al. 2013. Nilotinib population pharmacokinetics and exposure‐response analysis in patients with imatinib‐resistant or ‐intolerant chronic myeloid leukemia. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 69:813–823.
    1. Larson, R. A. , Yin O. Q., Hochhaus A., Saglio G., Clark R. E., Nakamae H., et al. 2012. Population pharmacokinetic and exposure‐response analysis of nilotinib in patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 68:723–733.
    1. Cross, N. C. , Melo J. V., Feng L., and Goldman J. M.. 1994. An optimized multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of BCR‐ABL fusion mRNAs in haematological disorders. Leukemia 8:186–189.
    1. Hughes, T. , Deininger M., Hochhaus A., Branford S., Radich J., Kaeda J., et al. 2006. Monitoring CML patients responding to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: review and recommendations for harmonizing current methodology for detecting BCR‐ABL transcripts and kinase domain mutations and for expressing results. Blood 108:28–37.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services . 2009. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 4.
    1. Hazarika, M. , Jiang X., Liu Q., Lee S. L., Ramchandani R., Garnett C., et al. 2008. Tasigna for chronic and accelerated phase Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myelogenous leukemia resistant to or intolerant of imatinib. Clin. Cancer Res. 14:5325–5331.
    1. Lin, D. 1997. Non‐parametric inference for cumulative incidence functions in competing risks studies. Stat. Med. 16:901–910.
    1. Gray, R. J. 1988. A class of K‐sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann. Stat. 16:1141–1154.
    1. Fine, J. P. , and Gray R. J.. 1999. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 94:496–509.
    1. Etienne, G. , Dulucq S., Nicolini F.‐E., Morisset S., Fort M. P., Schmitt A., et al. 2014. Achieving deeper molecular response is associated with a better clinical outcome in chronic myeloid leukemia patients on imatinib front‐line therapy. Haematologica 99:458–464.
    1. Hehlmann, R. , Müller M. C., Lauseker M., Hanfstein B., Fabarius A., Schreiber A., et al. 2014. Deep molecular response is reached by the majority of patients treated with imatinib, predicts survival, and is achieved more quickly by optimized high‐dose imatinib: results from the randomized CML‐study IV. J. Clin. Oncol. 32:415–423.
    1. Rea, D. , Nicolini F. E., Tulliez M., Guilhot F., Guilhot J., Guerci‐Bresler A., et al. 2016. Discontinuation of dasatinib or nilotinib in chronic myeloid leukemia: interim analysis of the STOP 2G‐TKI study. Blood 129:846–854.
    1. Hochhaus, A. , Masszi T., Giles F. J., Radich J. P., Ross D. M., Casares M. G., et al. 2017. Treatment‐free remission following frontline nilotinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: results from the ENESTfreedom study. Leukemia 31:1525–1531.
    1. Picard, S. , Titier K., Etienne G., Teilhet E., Ducint D., Bernard M. A., et al. 2007. Trough imatinib plasma levels are associated with both cytogenetic and molecular responses to standard‐dose imatinib in chronic myeloid leukemia. Blood 109:3496–3499.
    1. Mendizabal, A. M. , Garcia‐Gonzalez P., and Levine P. H.. 2013. Regional variations in age at diagnosis and overall survival among patients with chronic myeloid leukemia from low and middle income countries. Cancer Epidemiol. 37:247–254.
    1. Au, W. Y. , Caguioa P. B., Chuah C., Hsu S. C., Jootar S., Kim D. W., et al. 2009. Chronic myeloid leukemia in Asia. Int. J. Hematol. 89:14–23.
    1. Jain, P. , Kantarjian H. M., Ghorab A., Sasaki K., Jabbour E. J., Nogueras Gonzalez G., et al. 2017. Prognostic factors and survival outcomes in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in blast phase in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor era: Cohort study of 477 patients. Cancer 123:4391–4402.
    1. Sokal, J. E. , Cox E. B., Baccarani M., Tura S., Gomez G. A., Robertson J. E., et al. 1984. Prognostic discrimination in” good‐risk” chronic granulocytic leukemia. Blood 63:789–799.
    1. Hasford, J. , Pfirrmann M., Hehlmann R., Allan N. C., Baccarani M., Kluin‐Nelemans J. C., et al. 1998. A new prognostic score for survival of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia treated with interferon alfa Writing Committee for the Collaborative CML Prognostic Factors Project Group. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 90:850–859.
    1. Hasford, J. , Baccarani M., Hoffmann V., Guilhot J., Saussele S., Rosti G., et al. 2011. Predicting complete cytogenetic response and subsequent progression‐free survival in 2060 patients with CML on imatinib treatment: the EUTOS score. Blood 118:686–692.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj