online ISSN 2415-3176
print ISSN 1609-6371
logoExperimental and Clinical Physiology and Biochemistry
  • 10 of 12
Up
ECPB 2019, 87(3): 68–74
https://doi.org/10.25040/ecpb2019.03.068
Research articles

The Previous Treatment Value for the Nilotinib Therapy Efficiency in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

I.V. DMYTRENKO, I.S. DYAGIL, Zh.M. MINCHENKO, Z.V. MARTINA, V.G. FEDORENKO, T.Y. SHLYAKHTYCHENKO, V.V. SHOLOYKO, O.O. DMYTRENKO
Abstract

Introduction. Nilotinib efficiency as the first line therapy was assessed in randomized company-sponsored and academic trials. However, there is currently limited data on the nilotinib efficacy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) beyond clinical trials. We aimed to investigate in a real-life setting the response and the outcome on first-line nilotinib therapy and to evaluate prognostic value of pretreatment time before nilotinib administration in Ukrainian CML patient’s cohort.

Materials and methods. We analysed 64 CML patients followed up in the National Research Center for Radiation Medicine (Kyiv, Ukraine) during the period 2012–2019. All patients were in chronic phase and received nilotinib 600 mg/day. Among examined patients there were 30 (46.9%) men and 34 (53.1%) women. The median age was 45 years (21–82 years). The majority of patients (78%) received prior treatment lasting from 1 to 177 months (Me = 7.5 months). Median of follow-up was 47 months (6-84) months. Molecular monitoring of nilotinib therapy was performed by real-time RT-PCR at 3, 6, and 12 months of therapy and every 6 months thereafter. Cumulative incidence of complete cytogenetic response (CCR), major molecular response (MMR), deep molecular response (MR4) and long-term overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated.

Results. The tumor clone reduction to the level of MMR at 12 months of nilotinib therapy (optimal response) was detected in 63.7% of patients. Therapy failure at 12 months was registered in 22.8 % patients. In 13.5% of patients at 12 months of therapy was recorded only CCR. They formed a “warning” group. The MR4 rate at 24 months was 39.2%. In the entire follow-up period, of the 52 patients (81.2%) who had a tumor clone reduction to CCR and beyond, none lost achieved molecular or cytogenetic response. Two patients progressed to accelerated phase followed with blastic crisis. Five-year EFS, PFS and OS rates for all patients were 96.3%, 96.3% and 94.2%, respectively. We revealed significant reduction in the incidence of MMR (p = 0.028) at 12 months and an increase in the primary resistance rate (p = 0.003) in patients with a pretreatment period of more than 12 months compared with patients receiving prior therapy for less than 12 months.

There was a positive correlation between the duration of treatment before nilotinib administration and the development of primary resistance after 12 months of nilotinib therapy (Spearman correlation coefficient ρ = 0.434, p = 0.001), as well as a negative correlation between the duration of treatment before nilotinib administration and optimal response at 12 months of nilotinib therapy (Spearman correlation coefficient ρ = –0.385, p = 0.003). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant reduction in the rate of CCR, MMR and MR4 in patients with duration of nilotinib treatment more 12 months. No statistically significant differences were found in the 5-year PFS and OS rates in patients with different pretreatment term.

Conclusion: The use of nilotinib in patients with chronic phase CML is extremely effective. Timely nilotinib administration as the first line of TKI therapy significantly reduces the risk of primary resistance development.

Received: 23.08.2019

Keywords: chronic myeloid leukemia, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, therapeutic efficacy, molecular response, cytogenetic response

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 458K

References
  1. 1. Hehlmann R, Saußele S. Current best options for first line treatment of chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia. Clinical oncohematology. 2014;7(1):9-15.
  2. 2. Kantarjian H, O'Brien S, Jabbour E, Garcia-Manero G, Quintas-Cardama A, Shan J et al. Improved survival in chronic myeloid leukemia since the introduction of imatinib therapy: a single-institution historical experience. Blood. 2012;119(9):1981-87. doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-08-358135
  3. 3. Druker BJ, Guilhot F, O'Brien SG, Gathmann I, Kantarjian H, Gattermann N et al. Five year follow-up of patients receiving imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia. The New England journal of medicine. 2006;355:2408-17. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa062867
  4. 4. Hochhaus A, Larson RA, Guilhot F, Radich JP, Branford S, Hughes TP et al. Long-term outcomes of imatinib treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia. The New England journal of medicine. 2017;376(10):917-27. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1609324
  5. 5. O'Hare T, Walters DK, Deininger WN, Druker BJ. AMN107:Tightening the grip of imatinib. Cancer Cell. 2005;7(2):117-9. doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2005.01.020
  6. 6. Hochhaus A, Saglio G, Hughes TP, Larson RA, Kim DW, Issaragrisil S et al. 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.doi.org/10.1038/leu.2016.5 2016;30(5):1044-54.
  7. 7. Nakamae H, Fukuda T, Nakaseko C, Kanda Y, Ohmine K, Ono T et al. Nilotinib vs. imatinib in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: long-term follow-up of the Japanese subgroup of the randomized ENESTnd trial. International journal of hematology. 2018;107(3):327-36. doi.org/10.1007/s12185-017-2353-7
  8. 8. Dmytrenko I, Diahil I, Minchenko Zh, Martina Z, Fedorenko V, Shliaktichenko T et al. Prohnostychni faktory vidpovidi na terapiiu inhibitoramy tyrozynkinaz v ukrainskii kohorti patsiientiv z khronichnoiu miieloidnoiu leikemiieiu. Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenko. Seriia: Problemy rehuliatsii fiziolohichnykh funktsii. 2018;24: 17-24.
  9. 9. Baccarani M, Deininger MW, Rosti G, Hochhaus A, Soverini S, Apperley JF et al. European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management of chronic myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2013;122(6):872-884. doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-05-501569
  10. 10. Sharashova EE, Holmatova KK, Gorbatova MA, Grzhibovskij AM. Survival analysis in health sciences using SPSS software. Science & Healthcare. 2017;5: 5-28.
  11. 11. Saglio G, Kim D-W, Issaragrisil S, le Coutre P, Etienne G, Lobo C et al. Nnilotinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia. The New England journal of medicine. 2010;362:2251-9. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0912614
  12. 12. Puttini M, Coluccia AM, Boschelli F, Cleris L, Marchesi E, Donella-Deana A et al. In vitro and in vivo activity of SKI-606, a novel Src-Abl inhibitor, against imatinib-resistant Bcr-Abl+ neoplastic cells. Cancer Research. 2006;66(23):11314-22. doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1199
  13. 13. Mughal TI, Radich JP, Deininger MW, Apperley JF, Hughes TP, Harrison CJ et al. Chronic myeloid leukemia: reminiscences and dreams. Haematologica. 2016;101(5):541-58. doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2015.139337
  14. 14. Muvarak N, Nagaria P, Rassool FV. Genomic instability in chronic myeloid leukemia: targets for therapy? Current hematologic malignancy reports. 2012;7(2):94-102. doi.org/10.1007/s11899-012-0119-0


Програмування - Roman.im