Search

Abstract Background To evaluate the outcomes of first‐line imatinib versus nilotinib treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase (CML‐CP) in real‐world clinical practice. Methods A propensity score analysis was performed to eliminate imbalances between the treatment groups. In the analysis, 163 patients in the nilotinib group and 163 patients in the matched imatinib group were retrospectively evaluated. Results Nilotinib‐treated patients achieved complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response more rapidly than imatinib‐treated patients. However, there was no significant difference in 5‐year overall survival (OS) or progression‐free survival (PFS) between the two groups (OS: 94.3% vs. 90.5%, p = 0.602; PFS: 92.9% vs. 88.0%, p = 0.614). Nilotinib‐treated patients had a higher failure‐free survival (FFS) and event‐free survival (EFS) than imatinib‐treated patients (FFS: 71.7% vs. 54.3%, p = 0.040; EFS: 71.7% vs. 53.5%, p = 0.025). Conclusions This retrospective analysis from clinical practice did not confirm any benefit of frontline nilotinib treatment for OS and PFS; however, it did demonstrate higher FFS and EFS in the nilotinib cohort.

Bone marrow transplantation or ponatinib treatment are currently recommended strategies for management of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) harboring the T315I mutation and compound or polyclonal mutations. However, in some individual cases, these treatment scenarios cannot be applied. We used an alternative treatment strategy with interferon-α (IFN-α) given solo, sequentially or together with TKI in a group of 6 cases of high risk CML patients, assuming that the TKI-independent mechanism of action may lead to mutant clone repression. IFN-α based individualized therapy decreases of T315I or compound mutations to undetectable levels as assessed by next-generation deep sequencing, which was associated with a molecular response in 4/6 patients. Based on the observed results from immune profiling, we assumed that the principal mechanism leading to the success of the treatment was the immune activation induced with dasatinib pre-treatment followed by restoration of immunological surveillance after application of IFN-α therapy. Moreover, we showed that sensitive measurement of mutated BCR-ABL1 transcript levels augments the safety of this individualized treatment strategy.