Efficacy and safety following bosutinib dose reduction in patients with Philadelphia chromosome‒positive leukemias.

The recommended starting dose of bosutinib is 500 mg/day for chronic-phase (CP) or accelerated-/blast-phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant/intolerant to prior therapy. However, some patients may require dose reductions to manage the occurrences of adverse events (AEs). Bosutinib efficacy and safety were evaluated following dose reductions in a phase I/II study of Ph+ patients with CP CML resistant/intolerant to imatinib or imatinib plus dasatinib and/or nilotinib, and those with accelerated-/blast-phase CML or acute lymphoblastic leukemia after at least imatinib treatment. In all, 570 patients with ≥4 years' follow-up were included in this analysis. Among 144 patients who dose-reduced to bosutinib 400 mg/day (without reduction to 300 mg/day), 22 (15 %) had complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) before and after reduction, 40 (28 %) initially achieved CCyR after reduction, and 4 (3 %) only had CCyR before reduction. Among 95 patients who dose-reduced to bosutinib 300 mg/day, 23 (24 %) had CCyR before and after reduction, 13 (14 %) initially achieved CCyR after reduction, and 3 (3 %) only had CCyR before reduction. Results were similar to matched controls who remained on 500 mg/day, indicating dose reductions had not substantially affected efficacy. The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was lower after dose reductions, particularly for gastrointestinal events. The incidence of hematologic toxicities generally was similar before and after dose reduction. The management of AEs with bosutinib through dose reduction can lead to improved/maintained efficacy and better tolerability; still, approximately half of patients on treatment at year 4 maintained a dose of ≥500 mg/day. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00261846.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of bosutinib, dasatinib and nilotinib effect on survival and major cytogenetic response in treatment of second-line chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia.

Objective: In clinical trials of second-line therapies for chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML), to date, only single-arm trials have been conducted for the available tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments (bosutinib, dasatinib and nilotinib). These trials included heterogeneous patient populations in terms of disease and baseline characteristics. These hamper the use of standard network meta-analyses for indirect treatment comparison of relative efficacy. In this situation, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) in second-line CP-CML was performed. The aim was to compare the relative efficacies of bosutinib, dasatinib and nilotinib in second-line CP-CML patients.Methods: The MAIC was preceded by a systematic literature review that ensured inclusion of the underlying data for the analyses. The outcomes were measured in terms of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and major cytogenetic response (MCyR). The treatments were quantitatively compared based on Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) regressions, on restricted mean survival (RMST, when the proportionality assumption showed evidence of violation) and on odds ratios (for response measures).Results: Comparing with dasatinib, bosutinib resulted in HRs for PFS and OS of 0.63 (0.44-0.90, p < .05) and 0.82 (0.54-1.26, p = .37) respectively, and resulted in an OR for MCyR of 0.78 (0.53-1.16). Although the proportionality of hazards assumption was violated for PFS, the RMST analyses confirmed the findings of the Cox regression. When compared with nilotinib, bosutinib showed a significant HR of 0.54 (0.38-0.76, p < .01) in favor of bosutinib for PFS, a non-significant HR of 0.72 (0.46-1.13, p = .16) for OS and a non-significant OR of 0.98 (0.71-1.35) for MCyR.Conclusions: Bosutinib had a significantly greater PFS than both dasatinib and nilotinib. For OS, the findings were numerically in favor of bosutinib, but not statistically significant. For MCyR, the findings were numerically in favor of dasatinib and nilotinib, but not statistically significant.

Progression-free survival by local investigator versus independent central review: comparative analysis of the AGO-OVAR16 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary endpoint in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer (AEOC) trials may be confounded by the difficulty of radiologic evaluation of disease progression and the potential for discrepancy between investigator and blinded independent central assessments. PFS as assessed by local investigator (INV) was the primary endpoint of AGO-OVAR16, a randomized, double-blind trial of pazopanib maintenance therapy in AEOC. To confirm the robustness of the primary analysis, PFS was also evaluated by blinded independent central review (BICR). METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed AEOC (N = 940) were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg/day or placebo for up to 24 months. Tumor response in the intent-to-treat population was evaluated by CT/MRI every 6 months and analyzed per RECIST 1.0. RESULTS: Pazopanib prolonged PFS versus placebo by INV (median 17.9 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.766, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.643-0.911; P = 0.0021). Results for PFS by BICR were similar (median 15.4 vs 11.8 months; HR = 0.802, 95% CI: 0.678-0.949; P = 0.0084). Progression events were recorded later by INV in 23% of pazopanib-treated patients and 17% of placebo-treated patients. The overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments was 84% and 86% in the pazopanib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: By INV and BICR assessments, maintenance therapy with pazopanib in AEOC provided a significantly longer PFS than placebo. The good overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments, as well as HR and P value consistency, supports the reliability of investigator-assessed PFS as the primary endpoint in AGO-OVAR16.