Search

Objectives: Acquired missense mutations in the BCR::ABL1 kinase domain (KD) may cause tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment failure. Based on mutation‐specific in vitro derived IC50‐values, alternative TKI may be selected. We assessed clinical practice of BCR::ABL1 KD mutation testing, clinical response in relation to IC50‐values, and clinical outcome of tested patients. Methods: Patients from six Dutch CML reference centers and a national registry were included once a mutational analysis was performed. Reasons for testing were categorized as suboptimal TKI response, and primary or secondary TKI resistance. Results: Four hundred twenty analyses were performed in 275 patients. Sixty‐nine patients harbored at least one mutation. Most analyses were performed because of suboptimal TKI response but with low mutation incidence (4%), while most mutations were found in primary and secondary resistant patients (21% and 51%, respectively). Harboring a BCR::ABL1 mutation was associated with inferior overall survival (HR 3.2 [95% CI, 1.7–6.1; p <.001]). Clinically observed responses to TKI usually corresponded with the predicted TKI sensitivity based on the IC50‐values, but a high IC50‐value did not preclude a good clinical response per se. Conclusions: We recommend BCR::ABL1 KD mutation testing in particular in the context of primary or secondary resistance. IC50‐values can direct the TKI choice for CML patients, but clinical efficacy can be seen despite adverse in vitro resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Suboptimal guideline adherence in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) care is associated with worse treatment outcomes. Current study focused on adherence to seven quality indicators (QIs) based on the European Leukemia Network guideline (one diagnostic, one therapeutic, and five monitoring indicators). Data were obtained from population-based registries in the Netherlands of 405 newly diagnosed chronic phase CML patients between January 2008 and April 2013. Compliance rates regarding diagnostic and therapeutic indicator were 83% and 78%, respectively. Monitoring indicators rates were lower: 21–27% for indicators concerning the first year and 58% and 62% for the second and third year, respectively. Noncompliance occurred mostly due to non-timely monitoring. Twenty cases did not comply with any indicator, 6% complied with all indicators. After adjustment for age, overall survival rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Adherence to guideline-based QIs was suboptimal. This demonstrates the evidence-practice gap, shows room for improvement and underscores the need for real-world data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: The monitoring of response in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is of great importance to identify patients failing their treatment in order to adjust TKI choice and thereby prevent progression to advanced stage disease. Cytogenetic monitoring has a lower sensitivity, is expensive, and requires invasive bone marrow sampling. Nevertheless, chronic myeloid leukemia guidelines continue to recommend performing routine cytogenetic response assessments, even when adequate molecular diagnostics are available. Methods: In a population‐based registry of newly diagnosed CML patients in the Netherlands, all simultaneous cytogenetic and molecular assessments performed at 3, 6, and 12 months were identified and response of these matched assessments was classified according to European Leukemia Net (ELN) recommendations. The impact of discrepant cytogenetic and molecular response classifications and course of patients with additional chromosomal abnormalities were evaluated. Results: The overall agreement of 200 matched assessments was 78%. In case of discordant responses, response at 24 months was consistently better predicted by the molecular outcome. Cytogenetic response assessments provided relevant additional clinical information only in some cases of molecular “warning.” The development of additional cytogenetic abnormalities was always accompanied with molecular failure. Conclusion: We conclude that it is safe to omit routine cytogenetics for response assessment during treatment and to only use molecular monitoring, in order to prevent ambiguous classifications, reduce costs, and reduce the need for invasive bone marrow sampling. Cytogenetic re‐assessment should still be performed when molecular response is suboptimal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary The efficacy of azacitidine in the treatment of high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) (20-30% blasts) has been demonstrated. To investigate the efficacy of azacitidine in daily clinical practice and to identify predictors for response, we analysed a cohort of 90 MDS, CMML and AML patients who have been treated in a Dutch compassionate named patient programme. Patients received azacitidine for a median of five cycles (range 1-19). The overall response rate (complete/partial/haematological improvement) was 57% in low risk MDS, 53% in high risk MDS, 50% in CMML, and 39% in AML patients. Median overall survival (OS) was 13·0 (9·8-16·2) months. Multivariate analysis confirmed circulating blasts [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0·48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·24-0·99; P = 0·05] and poor risk cytogenetics (HR 0·45, 95% CI 0·22-0·91; P = 0·03) as independent predictors for OS. Interestingly, this analysis also identified platelet doubling after the first cycle of azacitidine as a simple and independent positive predictor for OS (HR 5·4, 95% CI 0·73-39·9; P = 0·10). In conclusion, routine administration of azacitidine to patients with variable risk groups of MDS, CMML and AML is feasible, and subgroups with distinct efficacy of azacitidine treatment can be identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]