Litcius/Paper detail

Efficacy and safety results from ASCEMBL, a phase 3 study of asciminib versus bosutinib (BOS) in patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) after ≥2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs): Week 96 update.

Delphine Réa, Michael J. Mauro, Andreas Hochhaus, Carla Boquimpani, Elza Lomaia, Sergey Voloshin, Anna Turkina, Dong‐Wook Kim, Jane Apperley, Jörge E. Cortes, Koji Sasaki, S. S. Kapoor, Alex Allepuz, Sara Quenet, Véronique Bédoucha, Yosuke Minami

2022Journal of Clinical Oncology10 citationsDOI

Abstract

7004 Background: Asciminib is the first BCR::ABL1 inhibitor to specifically target the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP). In the ASCEMBL primary analysis, asciminib had superior efficacy and better safety/tolerability than BOS in pts with CML-CP after ≥2 prior TKIs. After a median follow-up of 2.3 years (16.5 months’ additional follow-up since primary analysis), we report efficacy and safety results (cutoff: October 6, 2021). Methods: Eligible pts were adults with CML-CP after ≥2 prior TKIs, with intolerance or lack of efficacy per 2013 European LeukemiaNet. Pts were randomized 2:1 to asciminib 40 mg twice daily or BOS 500 mg once daily, stratified by major cytogenetic response (MCyR) status (Ph+ metaphases ≤35%) at baseline. The key secondary endpoint was major molecular response (MMR) rate at wk 96. Results: 233 pts were randomized to asciminib (n=157) or BOS (n=76). At cutoff, treatment was ongoing in 84 (53.5%) and 15 (19.7%) pts, respectively; the most common reason for discontinuation was lack of efficacy in 38 (24.2%) and 27 (35.5%) pts, respectively. MMR rate at wk 96 (per ITT) was higher on asciminib (37.6%) than BOS (15.8%). The difference, adjusting for baseline MCyR, was 21.7% (95% CI, 10.5%-33.0%; 2-sided P=.001). More pts on asciminib than BOS, respectively, had BCR::ABL1 IS ≤1% (45.1% vs 19.4%) at wk 96. The probability of maintaining MMR and BCR::ABL1 IS ≤1% for ≥72 wk was 96.7% (95% CI, 87.4%-99.2%) and 94.6% (95% CI, 86.2%-97.9%), respectively, on asciminib and 92.9% (95% CI, 59.1%-99.0%) and 95.0% (95% CI, 69.5%-99.3%), respectively, on BOS. Median duration of exposure was 103.1 (range, 0.1-201.1) wk on asciminib and 30.5 (range, 1.0-188.3) wk on BOS. Despite the longer duration of asciminib exposure, safety/tolerability of asciminib continued to be better than that of BOS (Table). No new on-treatment deaths were reported since the primary analysis. Most frequent (>10%) grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) on asciminib vs BOS were thrombocytopenia (22.4%, 9.2%), neutropenia (18.6%, 14.5%), diarrhea (0%, 10.5%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (0.6%, 14.5%). Conclusions: After >2 years of follow-up, asciminib continued to show superior efficacy and better safety/tolerability vs BOS. Responses were durable, with more pts on asciminib in MMR. Additionally, more pts on asciminib had BCR::ABL1 IS ≤1%, a milestone response in later lines associated with improved survival. These results continue to support the use of asciminib as a new CML therapy, with the potential to transform standard of care. Clinical trial information: NCT03106779. [Table: see text]

Topics & Concepts

MedicineDiscontinuationBosutinibInternal medicineTolerabilityClinical endpointGastroenterologyAdverse effectImatinibMyeloid leukemiaRandomized controlled trialNilotinibChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsClick Chemistry and ApplicationsAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Efficacy and safety results from ASCEMBL, a phase 3 study of asciminib versus bosutinib (BOS) in patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) after ≥2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs): Week 96 update. | Litcius