BACKGROUND: Both dasatinib and nilotinib are approved frontline therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) based on randomized trials compared with imatinib. However, no head-to-head comparison of dasatinib and nilotinib has been conducted in patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP. METHODS: The authors conducted a propensity score (PS) matched comparison of patients with CML-CP who received frontline therapy with either dasatinib (N = 102) or nilotinib (N = 104) under the respective phase 2 trials conducted in parallel. RESULTS: PS matching resulted in 87 patients from each trial being matched for pretreatment characteristics. The 3-month BCR-ABL1/ABL1 ratio <10% rate was 93% with dasatinib and 94% with nilotinib (P = .25); the rates of major molecular response at 12 months were 77% and 85%, respectively (P = .13); and the rates of molecular response with 4.5-log reduction in the ratio at 36 months were 66% and 64%, respectively (P = .96). All other clinically relevant responses were similar between the 2 treatment cohorts. The 3-year probability of event-free survival was 89% among the patients who received dasatinib and 87% among those who received nilotinib (P = .99), and the corresponding 3-year overall survival probabilities were 99% and 93%, respectively (P = .95). No statistical difference was observed between the dasatinib and nilotinib groups in any of the other survival endpoints. The treatment discontinuation rate also was similar between the 2 cohorts (dasatinib group, 18%; nilotinib group, 19%; P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: In a PS-matched cohort of patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP, dasatinib and nilotinib offer similar response and survival outcomes. Both drugs can be considered reasonable standard-of-care options as first-line therapy for patients with CML-CP. Cancer 2016;122:3336-3343.
BACKGROUND: Both dasatinib and nilotinib are approved frontline therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) based on randomized trials compared with imatinib. However, no head-to-head comparison of dasatinib and nilotinib has been conducted in patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP. METHODS: The authors conducted a propensity score (PS) matched comparison of patients with CML-CP who received frontline therapy with either dasatinib (N = 102) or nilotinib (N = 104) under the respective phase 2 trials conducted in parallel. RESULTS: PS matching resulted in 87 patients from each trial being matched for pretreatment characteristics. The 3-month BCR-ABL1/ABL1 ratio <10% rate was 93% with dasatinib and 94% with nilotinib (P = .25); the rates of major molecular response at 12 months were 77% and 85%, respectively (P = .13); and the rates of molecular response with 4.5-log reduction in the ratio at 36 months were 66% and 64%, respectively (P = .96). All other clinically relevant responses were similar between the 2 treatment cohorts. The 3-year probability of event-free survival was 89% among the patients who received dasatinib and 87% among those who received nilotinib (P = .99), and the corresponding 3-year overall survival probabilities were 99% and 93%, respectively (P = .95). No statistical difference was observed between the dasatinib and nilotinib groups in any of the other survival endpoints. The treatment discontinuation rate also was similar between the 2 cohorts (dasatinib group, 18%; nilotinib group, 19%; P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: In a PS-matched cohort of patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP, dasatinib and nilotinib offer similar response and survival outcomes. Both drugs can be considered reasonable standard-of-care options as first-line therapy for patients with CML-CP. Cancer 2016;122:3336-3343.
Authors: Hagop M Kantarjian; Neil P Shah; Jorge E Cortes; Michele Baccarani; Mohan B Agarwal; María Soledad Undurraga; Jianxiang Wang; Juan Julio Kassack Ipiña; Dong-Wook Kim; Michinori Ogura; Carolina Pavlovsky; Christian Junghanss; Jorge H Milone; Franck E Nicolini; Tadeusz Robak; Jan Van Droogenbroeck; Edo Vellenga; M Brigid Bradley-Garelik; Chao Zhu; Andreas Hochhaus Journal: Blood Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: J E Sokal; E B Cox; M Baccarani; S Tura; G A Gomez; J E Robertson; C Y Tso; T J Braun; B D Clarkson; F Cervantes Journal: Blood Date: 1984-04 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: H M Kantarjian; D Dixon; M J Keating; M Talpaz; R S Walters; K B McCredie; E J Freireich Journal: Cancer Date: 1988-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Giuseppe Saglio; Dong-Wook Kim; Surapol Issaragrisil; Philipp le Coutre; Gabriel Etienne; Clarisse Lobo; Ricardo Pasquini; Richard E Clark; Andreas Hochhaus; Timothy P Hughes; Neil Gallagher; Albert Hoenekopp; Mei Dong; Ariful Haque; Richard A Larson; Hagop M Kantarjian Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas O'Hare; Denise K Walters; Eric P Stoffregen; Taiping Jia; Paul W Manley; Jürgen Mestan; Sandra W Cowan-Jacob; Francis Y Lee; Michael C Heinrich; Michael W N Deininger; Brian J Druker Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: James E Signorovitch; Keith A Betts; William M Reichmann; Darren Thomason; Phil Galebach; Eric Q Wu; Lei Chen; Daniel J DeAngelo Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Ahmad Adel; Dina Abushanab; Anas Hamad; Mohammad Abdulla; Mohamed Izham; Mohamed Yassin Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2021 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Stéphane de Botton; Joseph M Brandwein; Andrew H Wei; Arnaud Pigneux; Bruno Quesnel; Xavier Thomas; Ollivier Legrand; Christian Recher; Sylvain Chantepie; Mathilde Hunault-Berger; Nicolas Boissel; Salem A Nehme; Mark G Frattini; Alessandra Tosolini; Roland Marion-Gallois; Jixian J Wang; Chris Cameron; Muhaimen Siddiqui; Brian Hutton; Gary Milkovich; Eytan M Stein Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 4.711