Efficacy of Nilotinib Vs High-Dose Imatinib Vs Sustaining Standard-Dose Imatinib in Early Chronic Phase CML Patients Who Have Suboptimal Molecular Response to Frontline Imatinib

Background. In chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), achievement of optimal responses by time point has improved long-term outcomes. In IRIS study, patients who achieved major molecular response (MMR) at 18 months had event-free survival (EFS) benefit, compared to those who achieved complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) without MMR. However, the best treatment for these patients is still not confirmed. By the previous studies, sustaining standard-dose of imatinib (IM) is expected to yield less than 20 percent of additive MMR. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of nilotinib (NIL) versus high-dose IM versus sustaining standard-dose IM for CCyR patients with suboptimal molecular response to frontline IM therapy.

Methods. Early chronic phase (CP) CML patients who have achieved CCyR but no MMR after at least 18 months and up to 24 months ( 18 to 24 months) on first-line IM therapy at a daily dose of 400 mg were divided into 3 treatment groups; NIL 400mg BID (800 mg/day; group 1) vs IM 400 mg BID (800 mg/day; group 2) vs IM 400mg QD (400mg/day; group 3). Group 1 and 2 patients were selected in RE-NICE multicenter study and group 3 patients were selected with the same inclusion criteria of RE-NICE.

The efficacy endpoints are MMR rate by 12 months and MMR rate and undetectable molecular residual disease (UMRD) rates by 36 months. Safety profiles of each group were compared.

Patients showing lack of response (lack of complete hematologic response (CHR) at 6 months, increasing WBC, no major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at 24 months), loss of response (loss of CHR or MCyR) or intolerance to treatment were allowed to switch to other treatment.

Results. With a data cut-off date of 17 Jul 2014, a total of 83 patients were evaluated; 29 patients in NIL group (group 1), 29 patients in high-dose IM group (group 2) and 25 patients in standard-dose IM group (group 3).

With a median follow-up of 36 months (range, 1-63), all patients in group 1 remained in nilotinib treatment, 17 patients in group 2 switched to NIL 400mg BID due to intolerance (n=4) and lack of response (no MMR; n=13). In group 3, with a median follow-up of 71 months (range, 6-132), 15 patients switched to other treatment due to intolerance (n=5) and lack of response (no MMR; n=10).

Up to now, all patients in three groups have maintained CCyR without progression or resistance.

10 in 29 (35%), 8 in 29 (28%) and 5 in 25 (20%) patients achieved MMR by 12 months, and 20 in 29 (69%), 15 in 29 (51%) and 11 in 25 (44%) patients achieved MMR by 36 months in group 1, group 2 and group 3 respectively. Overall, 3 patients in group 1 (3/29, 10%) achieved confirmed UMRD.

Overall 3 years probability of MMR was significantly higher in group 1 than the other two groups (67.8% vs 41.0% vs 40.4%, group 1, 2, 3 respectively, group 1 vs 2, P=0.089, group 1 vs 3, P=0.035, group 2 vs 3, P=0.614).

Compare to other groups, the patients in group 2 showed higher toxicities, such as leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, edema, fatigue, dyspnea and hypophosphatemia.

Conclusions. Nilotinib 400mg twice daily treatment showed better efficacy than high-dose or same standard-dose imatinib for the treatment of patients who have suboptimal molecular response to initial standard-dose imatinib. Additionally, a switch to nilotinib in suboptimal molecular responder to imatinib would also be preferable option in terms of tolerability. Updated data with longer follow-up duration will be presented in the meeting.