Safety and efficacy of bosutinib in fourth-line therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia patients.

Bosutinib is a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (2GTKI) approved at 400 mg once daily (QD) as first-line therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients and at 500 mg QD in patients who are resistant to or intolerant of prior therapy. In clinical practice, bosutinib is often given to patients who have failed imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib (i.e., as fourth-line treatment), despite the limited data on its clinical benefit in this setting. We have retrospectively evaluated the results of bosutinib in a series of 62 CML patients who have failed to prior treatment with all three, imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib. Median time on TKI treatment before bosutinib start was 105 (9-163) months, and median duration on bosutinib was 9 months (1-30). Overall, probabilities to achieve complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) were 25% and 24% respectively. After a median follow-up period of 14 months, the event-free survival and progression-free survival were 68 and 85%, respectively. Sixty-four percent of patients in CCyR at the time of bosutinib start were able to achieve MMR. In contrast, patients without CCyR, probabilities to obtain CCyR and MMR were 25% and 14%. Bosutinib was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated patients' cohort. Pleural effusions and diarrhea were the most frequent grade II-IV side effects, leading to treatment discontinuation in 16% of patients. Bosutinib is an effective treatment option for patients who have failed previous 2GTKIs due to intolerance. However, efficacy seems to be related to the molecular response that the patient achieved prior to bosutinib.

Results of the PETHEMA ALL-96 trial in elderly patients with Philadelphia chromosome-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Only 20-30% of elderly patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are enrolled in clinical trials because of co-morbid disorders or poor performance status. We present the results of treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph-) ALL patients over 55 yr treated in the PETHEMA ALL-96 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1996 to 2006, 33 patients > or = 55 yr with Ph- ALL were included. Induction therapy was vincristine, daunorubicin, prednisone, asparaginase, and cyclophosphamide over 5 weeks. Central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis involved triple intrathecal (IT) therapy, 14 doses over the first year. Consolidation-1 included mercaptopurine, methotrexate, teniposide and cytarabine, followed by one consolidation-2 cycle similar to the induction cycle. Maintenance consisted of mercaptopurine and methotrexate up to 2 yr in complete remission (CR) with monthly reinduction cycles (vincristine, prednisone and asparaginase) during the first year. RESULTS: Median (range) age was 65 yr (56-77). Phenotype (30 patients): early-pre-B 7, common/pre-B 18, T 5. Cytogenetics (28 patients): normal 12, complex 10, t(4;11) 2 and other 4. CR was achieved in 19/33 (57.6%) patients, early death occurred in 12 (36.4%) and 2 (6%) were resistant. Overall survival and disease-free survival probabilities (2 yr, 95% CI) were 39% (21%-57%) and 46% (22%-70%), respectively (median follow up of 24 months). Removal of asparaginase and cyclophosphamide from the induction decreased induction death (OR 0.119, CI 95% 0.022-0.637, P = 0.013) and increased survival (20% vs. 52%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of elderly Ph- ALL patients is poor. In this study, less intensive induction decreased toxic death, allowing delivery of planned consolidation therapy and increased survival probability.

Comparison of intensive chemotherapy, allogeneic, or autologous stem-cell transplantation as postremission treatment for children with very high risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: PETHEMA ALL-93 Trial.

PURPOSE: The optimal postremission therapy for children with very high-risk (VHR) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is not well established. This randomized trial compared three options of postremission therapy: chemotherapy and allogeneic or autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 106 VHR-ALL patients received induction with five drugs followed by intensification with three cycles of chemotherapy. Patients in complete remission (CR) with an HLA-identical family donor were assigned to allogeneic SCT (n = 24) and the remaining were randomly assigned to autologous SCT (n = 38) or to delayed intensification followed by maintenance chemotherapy up to 2 years in CR (n = 38). RESULTS: Overall, 100 patients achieved CR (94%). With a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were 45% (95% CI, 37% to 54%) and 48% (95% CI, 40% to 57%), respectively. The three groups were comparable in the main pretreatment ALL characteristics. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no differences for donor versus no donor in DFS (45%; 95% CI, 27% to 65% v 45%; 95% CI, 37% to 55%) and OS (48%; 95% CI, 30% to 67% v 51%; 95% CI, 43% to 61%), as well as for autologous SCT versus chemotherapy comparisons (DFS: 44%; 95% CI, 29% to 60% v 46%; 95% CI, 32% to 62%; OS: 45%; 95% CI, 31% to 62% v 57%; 95% CI, 43% to 73%). No differences were found within the different subgroups of ALL and neither were differences observed when the analysis was made by treatment actually performed. CONCLUSION: This study failed to prove that, when a family donor is available, allogeneic SCT produces a better outcome than autologous SCT or chemotherapy in children with VHR-ALL.