Basket trials in oncology: a systematic review of practices and methods, comparative analysis of innovative methods, and an appraisal of a missed opportunity.

Background: Basket trials are increasingly used in oncology drug development for early signal detection, accelerated tumor-agnostic approvals, and prioritization of promising tumor types in selected patients with the same mutation or biomarker. Participants are grouped into so-called baskets according to tumor type, allowing investigators to identify tumors with promising responses to treatment for further study. However, it remains a question as to whether and how much the adoption of basket trial designs in oncology have translated into patient benefits, increased pace and scale of clinical development, and de-risking of downstream confirmatory trials. Methods: Innovation in basket trial design and analysis includes methods that borrow information across tumor types to increase the quality of statistical inference within each tumor type. We build on the existing systematic reviews of basket trials in oncology to discuss the current practices and landscape. We conceptually illustrate recent innovative methods for basket trials, with application to actual data from recently completed basket trials. We explore and discuss the extent to which innovative basket trials can be used to de-risk future trials through their ability to aid prioritization of promising tumor types for subsequent clinical development. Results: We found increasing adoption of basket trial design in oncology, but largely in the design of single-arm phase II trials with a very low adoption of innovative statistical methods. Furthermore, the current practice of basket trial design, which does not consider its impact on the clinical development plan, may lead to a missed opportunity in improving the probability of success of a future trial. Gating phase II with a phase Ib basket trial reduced the size of phase II trials, and losses in the probability of success as a result of not using innovative methods may not be recoverable by running a larger phase II trial. Conclusion: Innovative basket trial methods can reduce the size of early phase clinical trials, with sustained improvement in the probability of success of the clinical development plan. We need to do more as a community to improve the adoption of these methods.

Association of Minimal Residual Disease Negativity Rates With Progression Free Survival in Frontline Therapy Trials for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-analysis.

Current frontline therapies for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients have significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS). This has led to interest in minimal residual disease negativity (MRDng) as an efficacy-response biomarker and possible surrogate endpoint. A meta-analysis was conducted to explore the surrogacy of MRD for PFS and quantify the relationship between MRDng rates and PFS at the trial level. A systematic search was conducted on phase II and III trials reporting MRDng rates along with median PFS (mPFS) or PFS hazard ratios (HR). Weighted linear regressions were conducted relating mPFS to MRDng rates, and relating PFS HRs to either odds ratios (OR) or rate differences (RD) for MRDng in comparative trials. A total of 14 trials were available for the mPFS analysis. log(MRDng rate) was moderately associated with log (mPFS), with a slope of ß = 0.37 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.48) and R2 = 0.62. A total of 13 trials were available for the PFS HR analysis. Treatment effects on MRDng rates were correlated with the corresponding effects on PFS: log (PFS HR) and log (MRDng OR) had a moderate association with ß = -0.36 (95% CI, -0.56 to -0.17) and R2 = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.77); log (PFS HR) and the MRDng RD had a stronger association with slope ß = -0.03 (95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02) and R2 = 0.67 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.86). MRDng rates moderately associate with PFS outcomes. MRDng RDs are more strongly associated with HRs than MRDng ORs, with evidence suggestive of potential surrogacy.

Model-based meta-analysis of non-small cell lung cancer with standard of care PD-1 inhibitors and chemotherapy for early development decision making.

Single-arm cohorts/trials are often used in early phase oncology programs to support preliminary clinical activity assessments for investigational products, administered alone or in combination with standard of care (SOC) agents. Benchmarking clinical activity of those combinations against other treatments, including SOC, requires indirect comparisons against external trials, which presents challenges including cross-study differences in trial populations/other factors. To facilitate such nonrandomized comparisons, we developed a comprehensive model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) framework to quantitatively adjust for factors related to efficacy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Data were derived from 15 published studies assessing key programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors pembrolizumab (n = 8) and nivolumab (n = 7), representing current SOC in mNSCLC. In the first stage, a mixed-effects logistic regression model for overall response rate (ORR) was developed accounting for effects of various population covariates on ORR. The ORR model results indicated an odds ratio (OR) of 1.02 for squamous versus non-squamous histology and OR of 1.20 for PD-ligand 1 tumor proportion score (TPS) per every 10% increase of TPS level. Next, a nonparametric mixed-effects model for overall survival (OS) was developed with ORR/other clinical covariates as input. Subsequently, MBMA simulations of relevant hypothetical scenarios involving single-arm trial design predicted OS hazard ratios as a function of ORR with matched patient characteristics. Findings from this MBMA and derived parameter estimates can be generally applied by the reader as a framework for interpreting efficacy data from early phase trials to support ORR-based go/no-go decisions and futility rules, illustrated through examples in this report.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on oncology clinical trial design, data collection and analysis.

BACKGROUND: To identify and assess via simulation the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on oncology trials and discuss potential mitigation strategies for study design, data collection, endpoints and analyses. METHODS: We simulated clinical trials to evaluate the COVID-19 impact on overall survival and progression-free survival. We evaluated survival in single-region trials with different proportions of impacted patients across treatment arms, and in multi-region randomized trials with different proportions of impacted patients across regions. We also assessed the impact on PFS when the missingness of disease assessment and censoring rules vary. Impact on the trial success and robustness of statistical inference was summarized. RESULTS: Without regional impact, the impact on OS analysis is minimal if proportions of impacted patients are similar across arms, however, if a larger proportion of treatment arm patients are impacted, trials may suffer substantial power loss and underestimate treatment effect size. For multi-region trials, if more treatment arm patients are enrolled from more severely impacted regions, trials also have poorer performance. For PFS analysis, the intent-to-treat rule performs well even when the treatment arm patients are more likely to miss disease assessments, while the consecutive-missing censoring rule may lead to poorer performance. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 affects oncology trials. Simulations would be highly informative to Data Monitoring Committee in understanding the impact and making appropriate recommendations, upon which the sponsor could start planning potential remedies. We also recommend a decision tree for choosing the appropriate methods for PFS evaluation in the presence of missing disease assessments due to COVID-19.

Designing Late-Stage Randomized Clinical Trials with Cancer Immunotherapy: Can We Make It Simpler?

The knowledge we have accumulated over the past few years in the field of cancer immunotherapy has prompted the research community to challenge the status quo of trial design and endpoint selection across all drug development phases. For the design of randomized phase III studies using overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint in particular, the paradigm has shifted from the conventional approach based on a proportional hazards model to those that account for the unique survival kinetics observed in immuno-oncology trials, such as long-term survival and delayed clinical effect. These new approaches usually require complex modeling or simulations, as well as assumptions about the length of delay in clinical effect and the long-term survival rate, making the process of implementing these new designs challenging. Here, a late-stage randomized clinical trial design is proposed based on milestone survival to simplify the process of sample size determination while keeping OS as the primary endpoint. The new design also allows assessment in milestone survival and is unaffected by the uncertainty of the survival kinetics demonstrated by cancer immunotherapies. Cancer Immunol Res; 6(3); 250-4. ©2018 AACR.

Relapse-Free Survival as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in the Evaluation of Stage II-III Melanoma Adjuvant Therapy.

Background: We assessed whether relapse-free survival (RFS; time until recurrence/death) is a valid surrogate for overall survival (OS) among resected stage II-III melanoma patients through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) on RFS and OS were collected from 5826 patients enrolled in 11 randomized adjuvant trials comparing interferon (IFN) to observation. In addition, IPD from two studies comparing IFN and vaccination in 989 patients were included. A two-level modeling approach was used for assessing Spearman's patient-level correlation (rho) of RFS and OS and the trial-level coefficient of determination (R²) of the treatment effects on RFS and on OS. The results were validated externally in 13 adjuvant studies without available IPD. We then tested the results on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 18071 double-blind trial comparing ipilimumab 10 mg/kg with placebo, which showed a statistically significant impact of the checkpoint inhibitor on RFS and OS. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: With a median follow-up of seven years, 12 of 13 trials showed a consistency between the IFN vs No IFN differences regarding RFS (hazard ratio [HR]RFS = 0.88) and OS (HROS = 0.91), but the small trial, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 2696, was an outlier (HRRFS = 0.72 vs HROS = 1.11). Therefore, even if rho was high, R² was low and could not reliably be estimated. Based on the 12 trials, rho remained high (0.89), and the hazard ratios for RFS and OS were strongly correlated (R² = 0.91). The surrogate threshold effect for RFS was estimated to be 0.77. For the EORTC 18071 trial, the hazard ratio for RFS was 0.75, predicting an effect of ipilimumab on OS. This was subsequently confirmed (HROS = 0.72, 95.1% confidence interval = 0.58 to 0.88, P = .001). Conclusions: In high-risk stage II-III melanoma, RFS appeared to be a valid surrogate end point for OS for adjuvant randomized studies assessing interferon or a checkpoint inhibitor. In future similar adjuvant studies, a hazard ratio for RFS of 0.77 or less would predict a treatment impact on OS.

Predicting analysis times in randomized clinical trials with cancer immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A new class of immuno-oncology agents has recently been shown to induce long-term survival in a proportion of treated patients. This phenomenon poses unique challenges for the prediction of analysis time in event-driven studies. If the phenomenon of long-term survival is not accounted for properly, the accuracy of the prediction based on the existing methods may be substantially compromised. METHODS: Parametric mixture cure rate models with the best fit to empirical clinical trial data were proposed to predict analysis times in immuno-oncology studies during the course of the study. The proposed prediction procedure also accounts for the mechanism of action introduced by cancer immunotherapies, such as delayed and long-term survival effects. RESULTS: The proposed methodology was retrospectively applied to a randomized phase III immuno-oncology clinical trial. Among various parametric mixture cure rate models, the Weibull cure rate model was found to be the best-fitting model for this study. The unique survival kinetics of cancer immunotherapy was captured in the longitudinal predictions of the final analysis times. CONCLUSIONS: Parametric mixture cure rate models, along with estimated long-term survival rates, probabilities of study incompletion, and expected statistical powers over time, provide immuno-oncology clinical trial researchers with a useful tool for continuous event monitoring and prediction of analysis times, such that informed decisions with quantifiable risks can be made for better resource and logistic planning.

Statistical Challenges in the Design of Late-Stage Cancer Immunotherapy Studies.

The past several years have witnessed a revival of interest in cancer immunology and immunotherapy owing to striking immunologic and clinical responses to immune-directed anticancer therapies and leading to the selection of "Cancer Immunotherapy" as the 2013 Breakthrough of the Year by Science. But statistical challenges exist at all phases of clinical development. In phase III trials of immunotherapies, survival curves have been shown to demonstrate delayed clinical effects, as well as long-term survival. These unique survival kinetics could lead to loss of statistical power and prolongation of study duration. Statistical assumptions that form the foundations for conventional statistical inference in the design and analysis of phase III trials, such as exponential survival and proportional hazards, require careful considerations. In this article, we describe how the unique characteristics of patient response to cancer immunotherapies will impact our strategies on statistical design and analysis in late-stage drug development.

Milestone Survival: A Potential Intermediate Endpoint for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Recent advancements in cancer immunotherapies offer diverse strategies for cancer treatment. Among the most promising approaches is the blockade of immune checkpoint molecules to activate antitumor immunity. With targeted immunotherapies of new mechanisms of action come greater challenges in study design and statistical analysis, as well as the need for refining clinical trial endpoints. The long-term survival and delayed clinical effects demonstrated by these therapies could result in substantial prolongation of study duration and loss of statistical power if these key attributes are not accounted for in the study design and statistical analyses. In the Brookings Conference on Clinical Cancer Research held in Washington, DC, in November 2013, several intermediate clinical endpoints, including milestone overall survival, were proposed for the evaluation of cancer immunotherapies to take into account the possibility of delayed treatment effect and to better characterize the clinical activity profile of such agents, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this manuscript, the use of milestone survival is described as a potential efficacy endpoint for immune checkpoint inhibitors in late-stage drug development that could potentially mitigate the challenge of accelerating the drug development process when the strength of this class of agents is derived from long-term follow-up.

Pooled Analysis of Long-Term Survival Data From Phase II and Phase III Trials of Ipilimumab in Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma.

PURPOSE: To provide a more precise estimate of long-term survival observed for ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma, we performed a pooled analysis of overall survival (OS) data from multiple studies. METHODS: The primary analysis pooled OS data for 1,861 patients from 10 prospective and two retrospective studies of ipilimumab, including two phase III trials. Patients were previously treated (n = 1,257) or treatment naive (n = 604), and the majority of patients received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (n = 965) or 10 mg/kg (n = 706). We also conducted a secondary analysis of OS data (n = 4,846) with an additional 2,985 patients from an expanded access program. OS rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Among 1,861 patients, median OS was 11.4 months (95% CI, 10.7 to 12.1 months), which included 254 patients with at least 3 years of survival follow-up. The survival curve began to plateau around year 3, with follow-up of up to 10 years. Three-year survival rates were 22%, 26%, and 20% for all patients, treatment-naive patients, and previously treated patients, respectively. Including data from the expanded access program, median OS was 9.5 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 10.0 months), with a plateau at 21% in the survival curve beginning around year 3. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of OS to date for ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma. We observed a plateau in the survival curve, beginning at approximately 3 years, which was independent of prior therapy or ipilimumab dose. These data add to the evidence supporting the durability of long-term survival in ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma.

Five-year survival rates for treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma who received ipilimumab plus dacarbazine in a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: There is evidence from nonrandomized studies that a proportion of ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma experience long-term survival. To demonstrate a long-term survival benefit with ipilimumab, we evaluated the 5-year survival rates of patients treated in a randomized, controlled phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A milestone survival analysis was conducted to capture the 5-year survival rate of treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma who received ipilimumab in a phase III trial. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg plus dacarbazine (n = 250) or placebo plus dacarbazine (n = 252) at weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10 followed by dacarbazine alone every 3 weeks through week 22. Eligible patients could receive maintenance ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks beginning at week 24. A safety analysis was conducted on patients who survived at least 5 years and continued to receive ipilimumab as maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The 5-year survival rate was 18.2% (95% CI, 13.6% to 23.4%) for patients treated with ipilimumab plus dacarbazine versus 8.8% (95% CI, 5.7% to 12.8%) for patients treated with placebo plus dacarbazine (P = .002). A plateau in the survival curve began at approximately 3 years. In patients who survived at least 5 years and continued to receive ipilimumab, grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events were observed exclusively in the skin. CONCLUSION: The additional survival benefit of ipilimumab plus dacarbazine is maintained with twice as many patients alive at 5 years compared with those who initially received placebo plus dacarbazine. These results demonstrate a durable survival benefit with ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.

Exposure-response relationships of the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma.

PURPOSE: This retrospective analysis was conducted to characterize ipilimumab exposure-response relationships for measures of efficacy and safety in patients with advanced melanoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Data were pooled from 498 patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy at 0.3, 3, or 10 mg/kg in 1 of 4 completed phase II clinical trials. The relationships between steady-state ipilimumab trough concentration (Cminss), complete or partial tumor response (CR or PR), and safety [immune-related adverse events (irAEs)] were described by logistic regression models. The relationship between exposure and overall survival was characterized using a Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: The steady-state trough concentration of ipilimumab was found to be a significant predictor of a CR or PR (P < 0.001). Model-based estimates indicate that the probabilities of a CR or PR at median Cminss for the 0.3, 3, and 10 mg/kg groups were 0.6%, 4.9%, and 11.6%, respectively. Overall survival at the median Cminss for ipilimumab at 0.3 mg/kg was estimated to be 0.85- and 0.58-fold lower relative to that at the median Cminss for 3 and 10 mg/kg, respectively. Model-based estimates indicate that the probabilities of a grade 3 or more irAE at the median Cminss for the 0.3, 3, and 10 mg/kg doses were 3%, 13%, and 24%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Higher doses of ipilimumab produce greater Cminss that may be associated with increased tumor responses, longer survival, and higher rates of irAEs. The efficacy and safety of ipilimumab at 3 versus 10 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma is being evaluated in an ongoing phase III trial.

Differential effects of dosing regimen on the safety and efficacy of dasatinib: retrospective exposure-response analysis of a Phase III study.

PURPOSE: Dasatinib is a prototypic short half-life BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The recommended dose of dasatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase was changed from 70 mg twice daily to 100 mg once daily following a Phase III dose-optimization study. To better understand the superior benefit-risk profile of dasatinib 100 mg once daily, exposure-response was characterized for efficacy (major cytogenetic response) and safety (pleural effusion). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dasatinib exposure in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase was determined by population pharmacokinetic analysis of data from seven dasatinib clinical studies (N = 981), including the Phase III dose-optimization study (n = 567). Data from the Phase III study were then used to characterize exposure-response relationships for the four dasatinib treatment regimens investigated (100 mg once daily, 50 mg twice daily, 140 mg once daily, and 70 mg twice daily). RESULTS: Major cytogenetic response was significantly (P < 0.01) associated with weighted average steady-state dasatinib plasma concentrations, and pleural effusion was significantly associated with trough concentration. Major cytogenetic response was also significantly associated with maintenance of uninterrupted dosing. The 100 mg once daily arm had the lowest steady-state trough concentration of the four dose arms investigated in the Phase III study, and although this arm also had the lowest weighted average steady-state dasatinib plasma concentration, it had the highest dose maintenance. CONCLUSION: Dasatinib dose optimization to 100 mg once daily from 70 mg twice daily significantly minimizes adverse events while maintaining efficacy by exploiting differences in the measures of exposure associated with efficacy and safety.

Statistical issues and challenges in immuno-oncology.

BACKGROUND: The development of immuno-oncologic agents poses unique challenges, namely that both efficacy and safety profiles differ from previously characterized cytotoxic and pathway-specific agents. In addition, exponential distribution is usually assumed in study designs with time-to-event endpoints such as overall survival or progression-free survival. This assumption might lead to wrong estimates of study duration and statistical power if the phenomena of long term survival and delayed clinical effects are present. The aim here was to evaluate the magnitude of the impact caused by the violation of this assumption, and to describe new ways of analyzing efficacy and safety of immuno-oncologic agents. METHODS: Monte Carlo simulation was implemented to explore the impact of long term survivors and delayed treatment effect on study power and trial duration. Scenarios with various combinations of long term and delayed treatment effects were considered. Study power and duration were evaluated based on 10000 randomly generated trial data sets. The utility of group sequential study designs was discussed. A new set of immune-related response criteria (irRC) was considered for efficacy analysis. Two new methods for identifying adverse events, termed immune-related adverse events (irAE) and immune-mediated adverse reactions (imAR) were described. The key features of the safety profiles derived using these two methods were similar. Both methods were aimed at identifying inflammatory adverse events caused by immunotherapies. RESULTS: The presence of long term survivors usually lengthened the study duration. Depending on the treatment effect post survival curve separation, delayed clinical effect in general led to a loss of power. The irRC offered a new way of identifying clinical responses. Both safety analyses demonstrated higher sensitivity of identifying adverse events of immune system origin. CONCLUSION: This simulation study showed the importance of accounting for the delayed treatment effect and long term survivors when these phenomena were expected. Interim analyses for the purpose of stopping the study for either positive or futile outcome should be implemented with caution in immuno-oncology trials. The new efficacy analysis offered a potential new way of assessing signs of activity in immunotherapies. While the irAE method facilitated prompt and effective management of adverse events, the imAR method captured truly immune-related events.

Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab monotherapy (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight), as compared with glycoprotein 100, improved overall survival in a phase 3 study involving patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 study of ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned 502 patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter) plus placebo, given at weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10, followed by dacarbazine alone every 3 weeks through week 22. Patients with stable disease or an objective response and no dose-limiting toxic effects received ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks thereafter as maintenance therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was significantly longer in the group receiving ipilimumab plus dacarbazine than in the group receiving dacarbazine plus placebo (11.2 months vs. 9.1 months, with higher survival rates in the ipilimumab-dacarbazine group at 1 year (47.3% vs. 36.3%), 2 years (28.5% vs. 17.9%), and 3 years (20.8% vs. 12.2%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.3% of patients treated with ipilimumab plus dacarbazine, as compared with 27.5% treated with dacarbazine and placebo (P<0.001). No drug-related deaths or gastrointestinal perforations occurred in the ipilimumab-dacarbazine group. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram) in combination with dacarbazine, as compared with dacarbazine plus placebo, improved overall survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. The types of adverse events were consistent with those seen in prior studies of ipilimumab; however, the rates of elevated liver-function values were higher and the rates of gastrointestinal events were lower than expected on the basis of prior studies. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00324155.).

Ipilimumab efficacy and safety in patients with advanced melanoma: a retrospective analysis of HLA subtype from four trials.

Ipilimumab is a fully human, monoclonal antibody that blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 to potentiate an antitumor T-cell response. This agent improved overall survival in a phase III trial in previously treated patients with advanced melanoma. Because the mechanism of action for ipilimumab is thought to be HLA independent, most trials enrolled patients without regard to HLA subtype. However, enrollment in the phase III trial was restricted to class-I HLA-A*0201-positive patients because two of the three arms contained an HLA-A*0201-restricted gp100 vaccine. HLA typing was also performed prospectively in several phase II trials and was available for 93.5% of patients. In this retrospective analysis, pooled efficacy and safety data are presented according to HLA-A*0201 status and dose from pretreated patients randomized to 0.3, 3, or 10 mg/kg ipilimumab in four phase II trials. Median overall survival (OS) was similar for the 187 HLA-A*0201-positive [9.3 months, 95% CI (confidence interval) 7.4-11.5] and 266 HLA-A*0201-negative patients [11.4 months, 95% CI 9.3-15.1] randomized to ipilimumab at all doses across the four phase II trials. These data are comparable to the OS for the 137 HLA-A*0201-positive patients randomized to ipilimumab in the phase III study [10.1 months, 95% CI 8.0-13.8]. Ipilimumab-induced adverse events and immune-related adverse events (skin, gastrointestinal, hepatic, other) also occurred at similar frequencies among patients in the phase II and III trials, regardless of HLA-A*0201 status. These findings support the hypothesis that ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma have similar outcomes regardless of their HLA-A*0201 status.

Dasatinib early intervention after cytogenetic or hematologic resistance to imatinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Although many patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) respond well to imatinib therapy, a significant proportion loses their initial response. Loss of response on imatinib is often because of BCR-ABL mutations. Dasatinib is a 325-fold more potent inhibitor of Bcr-Abl than imatinib and has been associated with high rates of durable responses in patients with CML in chronic phase (CP) after imatinib failure. METHODS: To determine the optimal time for initiating dasatinib after loss of response on imatinib, data from dasatinib trials in CML-CP were analyzed. Patients were grouped according to whether they received early intervention with dasatinib (ie, after cytogenetic recurrence on imatinib), rather than after both cytogenetic and hematologic recurrence. RESULTS: Overall, 72% of patients who received dasatinib after loss of a major cytogenetic response (MCyR) on imatinib achieved a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) compared with 42% of patients who were treated after loss of both MCyR and complete hematologic response (CHR). Event-free survival (EFS) also was higher after earlier dasatinib treatment (24-month EFS rates: 89% after loss of MCyR on imatinib vs 29% after loss of both MCyR and CHR). Among patients who were treated after loss of CHR on imatinib with no prior MCyR, 26% achieved a CCyR with dasatinib, and the 24-month EFS rate was 64%. In all 3 groups, CCyR rates were similar in patients with or without pre-existing BCR-ABL mutations. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggested that optimal outcomes are achieved when dasatinib is administered early after imatinib resistance.

Dasatinib in imatinib-resistant Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias.

BACKGROUND: The BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib is effective in Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph-positive) leukemias, but relapse occurs, mainly as a result of the outgrowth of leukemic subclones with imatinib-resistant BCR-ABL mutations. We evaluated dasatinib, a BCR-ABL inhibitor that targets most imatinib-resistant BCR-ABL mutations, in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) or Ph-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). METHODS: Patients with various phases of CML or with Ph-positive ALL who could not tolerate or were resistant to imatinib were enrolled in a phase 1 dose-escalation study. Dasatinib (15 to 240 mg per day) was administered orally in four-week treatment cycles, once or twice daily. RESULTS: A complete hematologic response was achieved in 37 of 40 patients with chronic-phase CML, and major hematologic responses were seen in 31 of 44 patients with accelerated-phase CML, CML with blast crisis, or Ph-positive ALL. In these two phases, the rates of major cytogenetic response were 45 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Responses were maintained in 95 percent of patients with chronic-phase disease and in 82 percent of patients with accelerated-phase disease, with a median follow-up more than 12 months and 5 months, respectively. Nearly all patients with lymphoid blast crisis and Ph-positive ALL had a relapse within six months. Responses occurred among all BCR-ABL genotypes, with the exception of the T315I mutation, which confers resistance to both dasatinib and imatinib in vitro. Myelosuppression was common but not dose-limiting. CONCLUSIONS: Dasatinib induces hematologic and cytogenetic responses in patients with CML or Ph-positive ALL who cannot tolerate or are resistant to imatinib. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00064233 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).