Cargando…
Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes of myeloid blast phase CML
BACKGROUND: The natural course of untreated chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is progression to an aggressive blast phase. Even in the current era of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), the outcomes of blast phase CML remain poor with no consensus frontline treatment approach. METHODS: We retro...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8204504/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34130720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13045-021-01106-1 |
_version_ | 1783708351992954880 |
---|---|
author | Saxena, Kapil Jabbour, Elias Issa, Ghayas Sasaki, Koji Ravandi, Farhad Maiti, Abhishek Daver, Naval Kadia, Tapan DiNardo, Courtney D. Konopleva, Marina Cortes, Jorge E. Yilmaz, Musa Chien, Kelly Pierce, Sherry Kantarjian, Hagop Short, Nicholas J. |
author_facet | Saxena, Kapil Jabbour, Elias Issa, Ghayas Sasaki, Koji Ravandi, Farhad Maiti, Abhishek Daver, Naval Kadia, Tapan DiNardo, Courtney D. Konopleva, Marina Cortes, Jorge E. Yilmaz, Musa Chien, Kelly Pierce, Sherry Kantarjian, Hagop Short, Nicholas J. |
author_sort | Saxena, Kapil |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The natural course of untreated chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is progression to an aggressive blast phase. Even in the current era of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), the outcomes of blast phase CML remain poor with no consensus frontline treatment approach. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the response rates and survival outcomes of 104 consecutive patients with myeloid blast phase CML (CML-MBP) treated from 2000 to 2019 based on 4 different frontline treatment approaches: intensive chemotherapy (IC) + TKI (n = 20), hypomethylating agent (HMA) + TKI (n = 20), TKI alone (n = 56), or IC alone (n = 8). We also evaluated the impact of TKI selection and subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) on patient outcomes. RESULTS: Response rates were similar between patients treated with IC + TKI and HMA + TKI. Compared to treatment with TKI alone, treatment with IC/HMA + TKI resulted in a higher rate of complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (57.5% vs 33.9%, p < 0.05), a higher complete cytogenetic response rate (45% vs 10.7%, p < 0.001), and more patients proceeding to ASCT (32.5% vs 10.7%, p < 0.01). With a median follow-up of 6.7 years, long-term outcomes were similar between the IC + TKI and HMA + TKI groups. Combination therapy with IC/HMA + TKI was superior to therapy with TKI alone, including when analysis was limited to those treated with a 2nd/3rd-generation TKI. When using a 2nd/3rd-generation TKI, IC/HMA + TKI led to lower 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR; 44% vs 86%, p < 0.05) and superior 5-year event-free survival (EFS; 28% vs 0%, p < 0.05) and overall survival (OS; 34% vs 8%, p = 0.23) compared to TKI alone. Among patients who received IC/HMA + TKI, EFS and OS was superior for patients who received a 2nd/3rd generation TKI compared to those who received imatinib-based therapy. In a landmark analysis, 5-year OS was higher for patients who proceeded to ASCT (58% vs 22%, p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients treated with TKI alone for CML-MBP, treatment with IC + TKI or HMA + TKI led to improved response rates, CIR, EFS, and OS, particularly for patients who received a 2nd/3rd-generation TKI. Combination therapy with IC + TKI or HMA + TKI, rather than a TKI alone, should be considered the optimal treatment strategy for patients with CML-MBP. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13045-021-01106-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8204504 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82045042021-06-16 Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes of myeloid blast phase CML Saxena, Kapil Jabbour, Elias Issa, Ghayas Sasaki, Koji Ravandi, Farhad Maiti, Abhishek Daver, Naval Kadia, Tapan DiNardo, Courtney D. Konopleva, Marina Cortes, Jorge E. Yilmaz, Musa Chien, Kelly Pierce, Sherry Kantarjian, Hagop Short, Nicholas J. J Hematol Oncol Research BACKGROUND: The natural course of untreated chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is progression to an aggressive blast phase. Even in the current era of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), the outcomes of blast phase CML remain poor with no consensus frontline treatment approach. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the response rates and survival outcomes of 104 consecutive patients with myeloid blast phase CML (CML-MBP) treated from 2000 to 2019 based on 4 different frontline treatment approaches: intensive chemotherapy (IC) + TKI (n = 20), hypomethylating agent (HMA) + TKI (n = 20), TKI alone (n = 56), or IC alone (n = 8). We also evaluated the impact of TKI selection and subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) on patient outcomes. RESULTS: Response rates were similar between patients treated with IC + TKI and HMA + TKI. Compared to treatment with TKI alone, treatment with IC/HMA + TKI resulted in a higher rate of complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (57.5% vs 33.9%, p < 0.05), a higher complete cytogenetic response rate (45% vs 10.7%, p < 0.001), and more patients proceeding to ASCT (32.5% vs 10.7%, p < 0.01). With a median follow-up of 6.7 years, long-term outcomes were similar between the IC + TKI and HMA + TKI groups. Combination therapy with IC/HMA + TKI was superior to therapy with TKI alone, including when analysis was limited to those treated with a 2nd/3rd-generation TKI. When using a 2nd/3rd-generation TKI, IC/HMA + TKI led to lower 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR; 44% vs 86%, p < 0.05) and superior 5-year event-free survival (EFS; 28% vs 0%, p < 0.05) and overall survival (OS; 34% vs 8%, p = 0.23) compared to TKI alone. Among patients who received IC/HMA + TKI, EFS and OS was superior for patients who received a 2nd/3rd generation TKI compared to those who received imatinib-based therapy. In a landmark analysis, 5-year OS was higher for patients who proceeded to ASCT (58% vs 22%, p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients treated with TKI alone for CML-MBP, treatment with IC + TKI or HMA + TKI led to improved response rates, CIR, EFS, and OS, particularly for patients who received a 2nd/3rd-generation TKI. Combination therapy with IC + TKI or HMA + TKI, rather than a TKI alone, should be considered the optimal treatment strategy for patients with CML-MBP. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13045-021-01106-1. BioMed Central 2021-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8204504/ /pubmed/34130720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13045-021-01106-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Saxena, Kapil Jabbour, Elias Issa, Ghayas Sasaki, Koji Ravandi, Farhad Maiti, Abhishek Daver, Naval Kadia, Tapan DiNardo, Courtney D. Konopleva, Marina Cortes, Jorge E. Yilmaz, Musa Chien, Kelly Pierce, Sherry Kantarjian, Hagop Short, Nicholas J. Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes of myeloid blast phase CML |
title | Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes of myeloid blast phase CML |
title_full | Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes of myeloid blast phase CML |
title_fullStr | Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes of myeloid blast phase CML |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes of myeloid blast phase CML |
title_short | Impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes of myeloid blast phase CML |
title_sort | impact of frontline treatment approach on outcomes of myeloid blast phase cml |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8204504/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34130720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13045-021-01106-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT saxenakapil impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT jabbourelias impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT issaghayas impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT sasakikoji impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT ravandifarhad impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT maitiabhishek impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT davernaval impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT kadiatapan impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT dinardocourtneyd impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT konoplevamarina impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT cortesjorgee impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT yilmazmusa impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT chienkelly impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT piercesherry impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT kantarjianhagop impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml AT shortnicholasj impactoffrontlinetreatmentapproachonoutcomesofmyeloidblastphasecml |