The long-term efficacy and safety of nilotinib in pediatric patients with CML:a 5-year update of the DIALOG study

The efficacy and safety of nilotinib in pediatric patients with imatinib/dasatinib resistant/ intolerant (R/I) or newly diagnosed (ND) Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) was demonstrated in the phase 2, open-label DIALOG study. In this final analysis, long-term efficacy and safety are presented for patients who completed 66 cycles (of 28 days) of treatment with nilotinib (230 mg/m2 twice daily) or discontinued early. Overall, 59 patients were enrolled and 58 were treated (R/I, n = 33; ND, n = 25; median time on treatment: 60.5 and 51.9 months, respectively). In the R/I cohort, the cumulative major molecular response (MMR; BCR::ABL1 international scale [IS] ≤ 0.1%) rate was 60.6%, and no patients had a confirmed loss of MMR. Among ND patients, the best overall MMR rate was 76.0%; 3 patients had a confirmed loss of MMR. The cumulative molecular response MR4 (BCR::ABL1IS ≤ 0.01%) and MR4.5 (BCR::ABL1IS ≤ 0.0032%) rates by 66 cycles were 27.3% and 12.1% in the R/I cohort, and 56.0% and 44.0% in the ND cohort, respectively. The safety profile of nilotinib was consistent with those of earlier reports. No on-treatment deaths occurred. These long-term (up to ~5 years) data support the efficacy and safety of nilotinib in pediatric patients with Ph+ CML-CP. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov.uk as #NCT01844765.</p

A phase 2 study of nilotinib in pediatric patients with CML: Long-term update on growth retardation and safety

The phase 2, open-label study (DIALOG) of nilotinib in pediatric patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) met its coprimary end points, showing sustained nilotinib efficacy in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) or imatinib/dasatinib resistant/intolerant (R/I) CML. This update assessed growth and safety profiles in patients who had completed ≥48, 28-day treatment cycles of nilotinib 230 mg/m2 twice daily, or previously discontinued the study. Height was assessed regularly and reported using standard deviation scores (SDSs) based on World Health Organization growth charts. All data were summarized descriptively (cutoff, 6 March 2019). Overall, 33 patients in the R/I cohort and 25 patients in the ND cohort received nilotinib. Each cohort showed a negative slope in height SDS over the course of the study, indicating attenuated growth rates during nilotinib treatment: overall median change from baseline in height SDS after 48 cycles was 20.54 SDS (range, 2 1.6 to 0.4) and 20.91 SDS (21.4 to 20.1) in R/I and ND cohorts, respectively. Patients in the R/I cohort were shorter at baseline than those in the ND cohort, and remained so throughout the study. The most common all-cause adverse events were increased blood bilirubin (53.4%), headache (46.6%), pyrexia (37.9%), and increased alanine transferase (36.2%). Apart from the impact on growth, the safety profile of nilotinib was generally consistent with previous reports. This study was registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov at #NCT01844765

A phase 2 study of nilotinib in pediatric patients with CML

The phase 2, open-label study (DIALOG) of nilotinib in pediatric patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) met its coprimary end points, showing sustained nilotinib efficacy in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) or imatinib/dasatinib resistant/intolerant (R/I) CML. This update assessed growth and safety profiles in patients who had completed ≥48, 28-day treatment cycles of nilotinib 230 mg/m2 twice daily, or previously discontinued the study. Height was assessed regularly and reported using standard deviation scores (SDSs) based on World Health Organization growth charts. All data were summarized descriptively (cutoff, 6 March 2019). Overall, 33 patients in the R/I cohort and 25 patients in the ND cohort received nilotinib. Each cohort showed a negative slope in height SDS over the course of the study, indicating attenuated growth rates during nilotinib treatment: overall median change from baseline in height SDS after 48 cycles was 20.54 SDS (range, 2 1.6 to 0.4) and 20.91 SDS (21.4 to 20.1) in R/I and ND cohorts, respectively. Patients in the R/I cohort were shorter at baseline than those in the ND cohort, and remained so throughout the study. The most common all-cause adverse events were increased blood bilirubin (53.4%), headache (46.6%), pyrexia (37.9%), and increased alanine transferase (36.2%). Apart from the impact on growth, the safety profile of nilotinib was generally consistent with previous reports. This study was registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov at #NCT01844765.</p

Long-term outcomes with frontline nilotinib versus imatinib in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: ENESTnd 10-year analysis

AbstractIn the ENESTnd study, with ≥10 years follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase, nilotinib demonstrated higher cumulative molecular response rates, lower rates of disease progression and CML-related death, and increased eligibility for treatment-free remission (TFR). Cumulative 10-year rates of MMR and MR4.5 were higher with nilotinib (300 mg twice daily [BID], 77.7% and 61.0%, respectively; 400 mg BID, 79.7% and 61.2%, respectively) than with imatinib (400 mg once daily [QD], 62.5% and 39.2%, respectively). Cumulative rates of TFR eligibility at 10 years were higher with nilotinib (300 mg BID, 48.6%; 400 mg BID, 47.3%) vs imatinib (29.7%). Estimated 10-year overall survival rates in nilotinib and imatinib arms were 87.6%, 90.3%, and 88.3%, respectively. Overall frequency of adverse events was similar with nilotinib and imatinib. By 10 years, higher cumulative rates of cardiovascular events were reported with nilotinib (300 mg BID, 16.5%; 400 mg BID, 23.5%) vs imatinib (3.6%), including in Framingham low-risk patients. Overall efficacy and safety results support the use of nilotinib 300 mg BID as frontline therapy for optimal long-term outcomes, especially in patients aiming for TFR. The benefit-risk profile in context of individual treatment goals should be carefully assessed.</jats:p