BCR-ABL Cutoffs at 3 Months Could Influence CML Treatment

News
Article

Measuring changes in levels of BCR-ABL in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) can help predict treatment outcomes and disease progression, according to a new study.

Measuring changes in levels of BCR-ABL in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) can help predict treatment outcomes and disease progression, according to a new study.

Response assessment at 3 months with imatinib has become an important tool to predict outcomes, according to study authors led by Benjamin Hanfstein, MD, of the University of Heidelberg in Germany. “In theory, the prognostic impact of 3-month response landmarks could be driven by individual differences in tumor load at diagnosis, that is, BCR-ABL transcript levels, or by the individual reduction of transcript levels within the first 3 months of treatment,” the authors wrote.

In the new study, they analyzed data from 301 patients who participated in the German CML-Study IV. All were treatment-naive at sample collection, and were then treated with imatinib. The BCR-ABL transcript levels at diagnosis ranged very widely, and no particularly cutoff at that point could be identified that predicted overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS).

At 3 months, however, predictive cutoffs did emerge. A 3-month reduction ratio of 0.35-fold was found to be the best cutoff point, which corresponded to a 0.46-log reduction in BCR-ABL transcript levels. This amount yielded a high-risk group of 48 patients (16%), and discriminated significantly with regard to OS and PFS (P = .001 for both). The 5-year OS in the high-risk group was 83%, compared with 98% in the low-risk group.

The median BCR-ABL transcript ratio was 33% at diagnosis, and dropped to 1.4% at 3 months. The researchers looked at four different landmarks, all of which turned out to be significantly predictive of OS. Using a 6% cutoff yielded 65 patients as high-risk (22%), and a 5-year OS of 85% vs 98% (hazard ratio [HR] = 6.1; P = .002). HRs were similar for 10%, 14%, and 21% cutoffs, though each yielded fewer high-risk patients. Thus, the 6% cutoff was selected as the best available option.

The authors noted that the sample size was too small to also provide a validation cohort for these results, so further study is still needed to confirm them.

“The definition of cutoff levels to be used as predictive response landmarks that imply clinical consequences, for example, a change of TKI treatment or the evaluation of stem cell transplantation, is difficult,” the authors wrote. These cutoff values, though, do seem promising for doing just that. “The lack of achieving a half-log reduction at 3 months is a negative prognostic indicator and may trigger treatment intervention.”

Recent Videos
Cytokine release syndrome was primarily low or intermediate in severity, with no grade 5 instances reported among those with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Safety results from a phase 2 trial show that most toxicities with durvalumab treatment were manageable and low or intermediate in severity.
Investigators are currently evaluating mosunetuzumab in relapsed disease or comparing it with rituximab in treatment-naïve follicular lymphoma.
Compared with second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, asciminib was better tolerated in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia.
Bulkiness of disease did not appear to impact PFS outcomes with ibrutinib plus venetoclax in the phase 2 CAPTIVATE study.
Greater direct access to academic oncologists may help address challenges associated with a lack of CAR T education in the community setting.
Certain bridging therapies and abundant steroid use may complicate the T-cell collection process during CAR T therapy.
Educating community practices on CAR T referral and sequencing treatment strategies may help increase CAR T utilization.
Harmonizing protocols across the health care system may bolster the feasibility of giving bispecifics to those with lymphoma in a community setting.
Establishment of an AYA Lymphoma Consortium has facilitated a process to better understand and address gaps in knowledge for this patient group.
Related Content