Compelling study showing Asciminib vs. investigator’s choice TKi. Asciminib was better tolerated and with deeper molecular responses. This may become a preferred option for many new chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients. Cost may be an issue.
Patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) need long-term therapy with high efficacy and safety. Asciminib, a BCR::ABL1 inhibitor specifically targeting the ABL myristoyl pocket, may offer better efficacy and safety and fewer side effects than currently available frontline ATP-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).
In a phase 3 trial, patients with newly diagnosed CML were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either asciminib (80 mg once daily) or an investigator-selected TKI, with randomization stratified by European Treatment and Outcome Study long-term survival score category (low, intermediate, or high risk) and by TKI selected by investigators before randomization (including imatinib and second-generation TKIs). The primary end points were major molecular response (defined as BCR::ABL1 transcript levels ≤0.1% on the International Scale [IS]) at week 48, for comparisons between asciminib and investigator-selected TKIs and between asciminib and investigator-selected TKIs in the prerandomization-selected imatinib stratum.
A total of 201 patients were assigned to receive asciminib and 204 to receive investigator-selected TKIs. The median follow-up was 16.3 months in the asciminib group and 15.7 months in the investigator-selected TKI group. A major molecular response at week 48 occurred in 67.7% of patients in the asciminib group, as compared with 49.0% in the investigator-selected TKI group (difference, 18.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6 to 28.2; adjusted two-sided P<0.001]), and in 69.3% of patients in the asciminib group as compared with 40.2% in the imatinib group within the imatinib stratum (difference, 29.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 16.9 to 42.2; adjusted two-sided P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a major molecular response at week 48 was 66.0% with asciminib and 57.8% with TKIs in the second-generation TKI stratum (difference, 8.2 percentage points; 95% CI, −5.1 to 21.5). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher and events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were less frequent with asciminib (38.0% and 4.5%, respectively) than with imatinib (44.4% and 11.1%) and second-generation TKIs (54.9% and 9.8%).
In this trial comparing asciminib with investigator-selected TKIs and imatinib, asciminib showed superior efficacy and a favorable safety profile in patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML. Direct comparison between asciminib and second-generation TKIs was not a primary objective. (Funded by Novartis; ASC4FIRST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04971226).
Sorafenib did not help in newly diagnosed AML (with FLT-ITD) patients as maintenance therapy. MRD testing can also predict survival outcome.
A small number of patients in this study, but it is an interesting test to predict who can be off therapy in CML. Patients who are high risk probably should to be taken off therapy, but this gives us something to build on.
While use of Hydroxyurea for CMML may not be common practice, it is an option.
High ORR of 89%in patients with HCL using BRAF/MET combination therapy, MRD-neg in 69%. The adage that we have more drugs than patients with HCL still holds true for most of us.
Is ibrutininb’s days as a treatment for CLL over? Zanubrutinib is more effective and less toxic.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
