PURPOSE: There is a considerable variability in the level of molecular responses achieved with imatinib therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). These differences could result from variable therapy adherence. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients with chronic-phase CML treated with imatinib 400 mg/d for a median of 59.7 months (range, 25 to 104 months) who had achieved complete cytogenetic response had adherence monitored during a 3-month period by using a microelectronic monitoring device. Adherence was correlated with levels of molecular response. Other factors that could influence outcome were also analyzed. RESULTS: Median adherence rate was 98% (range, 24% to 104%). Twenty-three patients (26.4%) had adherence <or= 90%; in 12 of these patients (14%), adherence was <or= 80%. There was a strong correlation between adherence rate (<or= 90% or > 90%) and the 6-year probability of a 3-log reduction (also known as major molecular response [MMR]) in BCR-ABL1 transcripts (28.4% v 94.5%; P < .001) and also complete molecular response (CMR; 0% v 43.8%; P = .002). Multivariate analysis identified adherence (relative risk [RR], 11.7; P = .001) and expression of the molecular human organic cation transporter-1 (RR, 1.79; P = .038) as the only independent predictors for MMR. Adherence was the only independent predictor for CMR. No molecular responses were observed when adherence was <or= 80% (P < .001). Patients whose imatinib doses were increased had poor adherence (86.4%). In this latter population, adherence was the only independent predictor for inability to achieve an MMR (RR, 17.66; P = .006). CONCLUSION: In patients with CML treated with imatinib for some years, poor adherence may be the predominant reason for inability to obtain adequate molecular responses.
PURPOSE: There is a considerable variability in the level of molecular responses achieved with imatinib therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). These differences could result from variable therapy adherence. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients with chronic-phase CML treated with imatinib 400 mg/d for a median of 59.7 months (range, 25 to 104 months) who had achieved complete cytogenetic response had adherence monitored during a 3-month period by using a microelectronic monitoring device. Adherence was correlated with levels of molecular response. Other factors that could influence outcome were also analyzed. RESULTS: Median adherence rate was 98% (range, 24% to 104%). Twenty-three patients (26.4%) had adherence <or= 90%; in 12 of these patients (14%), adherence was <or= 80%. There was a strong correlation between adherence rate (<or= 90% or > 90%) and the 6-year probability of a 3-log reduction (also known as major molecular response [MMR]) in BCR-ABL1 transcripts (28.4% v 94.5%; P < .001) and also complete molecular response (CMR; 0% v 43.8%; P = .002). Multivariate analysis identified adherence (relative risk [RR], 11.7; P = .001) and expression of the molecular human organic cation transporter-1 (RR, 1.79; P = .038) as the only independent predictors for MMR. Adherence was the only independent predictor for CMR. No molecular responses were observed when adherence was <or= 80% (P < .001). Patients whose imatinib doses were increased had poor adherence (86.4%). In this latter population, adherence was the only independent predictor for inability to achieve an MMR (RR, 17.66; P = .006). CONCLUSION: In patients with CML treated with imatinib for some years, poor adherence may be the predominant reason for inability to obtain adequate molecular responses.
Authors: Jaspal Kaeda; Derville O'Shea; Richard M Szydlo; Eduardo Olavarria; Francesco Dazzi; David Marin; Susan Saunders; Jamshid S Khorashad; Nicholas C P Cross; John M Goldman; Jane F Apperley Journal: Blood Date: 2006-01-31 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: D Marin; J Kaeda; R Szydlo; S Saunders; A Fleming; J Howard; C Andreasson; M Bua; E Olavarria; A Rahemtulla; F Dazzi; E Kanfer; J M Goldman; J F Apperley Journal: Leukemia Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Myrtle Y Gordon; Stephen B Marley; Jane F Apperley; David Marin; Jaspal Kaeda; Richard Szydlo; John M Goldman Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: S Branford; Z Rudzki; A Harper; A Grigg; K Taylor; S Durrant; C Arthur; P Browett; A P Schwarer; D Ma; J F Seymour; K Bradstock; D Joske; K Lynch; I Gathmann; T P Hughes Journal: Leukemia Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Michael J Stirratt; Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob; Heidi M Crane; Jane M Simoni; Susan Czajkowski; Marisa E Hilliard; James E Aikens; Christine M Hunter; Dawn I Velligan; Kristen Huntley; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Cynthia S Rand; Eleanor Schron; Wendy J Nilsen Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Jane R Engler; Andrew C W Zannettino; Charles G Bailey; John E J Rasko; Timothy P Hughes; Deborah L White Journal: Haematologica Date: 2010-10-22 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Gita Thanarajasingam; Lori M Minasian; Frederic Baron; Franco Cavalli; R Angelo De Claro; Amylou C Dueck; Tarec C El-Galaly; Neil Everest; Jan Geissler; Christian Gisselbrecht; John Gribben; Mary Horowitz; S Percy Ivy; Caron A Jacobson; Armand Keating; Paul G Kluetz; Aviva Krauss; Yok Lam Kwong; Richard F Little; Francois-Xavier Mahon; Matthew J Matasar; María-Victoria Mateos; Kristen McCullough; Robert S Miller; Mohamad Mohty; Philippe Moreau; Lindsay M Morton; Sumimasa Nagai; Simon Rule; Jeff Sloan; Pieter Sonneveld; Carrie A Thompson; Kyriaki Tzogani; Flora E van Leeuwen; Galina Velikova; Diego Villa; John R Wingard; Sophie Wintrich; John F Seymour; Thomas M Habermann Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 18.959
Authors: Luciene Terezina de Lima; Douglas Vivona; Carolina Tosin Bueno; Rosario D C Hirata; Mario H Hirata; André D Luchessi; Fabíola Attié de Castro; Maria de Lourdes F Chauffaille; Maria A Zanichelli; Carlos S Chiattone; Vania T M Hungria; Elvira M Guerra-Shinohara Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 3.064