Purpose: Bosutinib is a potent dual SRC/ABL kinase inhibitor approved for adults with Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant and /or intolerant to prior therapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of bosutinib versus imatinib for first-line treatment of chronic-phase CML. Methods: In this ongoing, multinational, phase III study, 536 patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 400 mg of bosutinib once daily (n = 268) or imatinib (n = 268). Per protocol, efficacy was assessed in patients who were Philadelphia chromosome–positive with typical (e13a2/e14a2) transcripts (bosutinib, n = 246; imatinib, n = 241). Patients with Philadelphia chromosome–negative–/ BCR-ABL1–positive status and those with unknown Philadelphia chromosome status and/or atypical BCR-ABL1 transcript type were excluded from this population. Results: The major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months (primary end point) was significantly higher with bosutinib versus imatinib (47.2% v 36.9%, respectively; P = .02), as was complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rate by 12 months (77.2% v 66.4%, respectively; P = .0075). Cumulative incidence was favorable with bosutinib (MMR: hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .0173; CCyR: hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001), with earlier response times. Four patients (1.6%) receiving bosutinib and six patients (2.5%) receiving imatinib experienced disease progression to accelerated/blast phase. Among treated patients, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of patients receiving imatinib discontinued treatment, most commonly for drug-related toxicity (12.7% and 8.7%, respectively). Grade ≥ 3 diarrhea (7.8% v 0.8%) and increased ALT (19.0% v 1.5%) and AST (9.7% v 1.9%) levels were more common with bosutinib. Cardiac and vascular toxicities were uncommon. Conclusion: Patients who received bosutinib had significantly higher rates of MMR and CCyR and achieved responses faster than those who received imatinib. Consistent with the known safety profile, GI events and transaminase elevations were more common with bosutinib. Results indicate bosutinib may be an effective first-line treatment for chronic-phase CML.

Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) resistant/intolerant to ≥2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are at high risk of experiencing poor outcomes because of disease biology and inadequate efficacy and/or safety of current therapies. Asciminib, a first-in-class BCR-ABL1 inhibitor Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP), has the potential to overcome resistance/intolerance to approved TKIs. In this phase 3, open-label study, patients with CML-CP previously treated with ≥2 TKIs were randomized (2:1) to receive asciminib 40 mg twice daily vs bosutinib 500 mg once daily. Randomization was stratified by major cytogenetic response (MCyR) status at baseline. The primary objective was to compare the major molecular response (MMR) rate at week 24 for asciminib vs bosutinib. A total of 233 patients were randomized to asciminib (n = 157) or bosutinib (n = 76). Median follow-up was 14.9 months. The MMR rate at week 24 was 25.5% with asciminib and 13.2% with bosutinib. The difference in MMR rate between treatment arms, after adjusting for MCyR at baseline, was 12.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.19-22.30; 2-sided P = .029). Fewer grade ≥3 adverse events (50.6% vs 60.5%) and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (5.8% vs 21.1%) occurred with asciminib than with bosutinib. The study showed a superior efficacy of asciminib compared with that of bosutinib, together with a favorable safety profile. These results support the use of asciminib as a new therapy in patients with CML-CP who are resistant/intolerant to ≥2 prior TKIs. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03106779.

This analysis from the multicenter, open-label, phase 3 BFORE trial reports efficacy and safety of bosutinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase (CP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) after five years’ follow-up. Patients were randomized to 400-mg once-daily bosutinib (n = 268) or imatinib (n = 268; three untreated). At study completion, 59.7% of bosutinib- and 58.1% of imatinib-treated patients remained on study treatment. Median duration of treatment and time on study was 55 months in both groups. Cumulative major molecular response (MMR) rate by 5 years was higher with bosutinib versus imatinib (73.9% vs. 64.6%; odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.08–2.28]), as were cumulative MR⁴(58.2% vs. 48.1%; 1.50 [1.07–2.12]) and MR^4.5(47.4% vs. 36.6%; 1.57 [1.11–2.22]) rates. Superior MR with bosutinib versus imatinib was consistent across Sokal risk groups, with greatest benefit seen in patients with high risk. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with 12-month data. After 5 years of follow-up there was an increase in the incidence of cardiac, effusion, renal, and vascular TEAEs in bosutinib- and imatinib-treated patients, but overall, no new safety signals were identified. These final results support 400-mg once-daily bosutinib as standard-of-care in patients with newly diagnosed CP CML.This trial was registered atwww.clinicaltrials.govas #NCT02130557.

Asciminib, the first BCR::ABL1 inhibitor that Specifically Targets the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP), is approved worldwide for the treatment of adults with Philadelphia chromosome–positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) treated with ≥2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). In ASCEMBL, patients with CML-CP treated with ≥2 prior TKIs were randomized (stratified by baseline major cytogenetic response [MCyR]) 2:1 to asciminib 40 mg twice daily or bosutinib 500 mg once daily. Consistent with previously published primary analysis results, after a median follow-up of 2.3 years, asciminib continued to demonstrate superior efficacy and better safety and tolerability than bosutinib. The major molecular response (MMR) rate at week 96 (key secondary endpoint) was 37.6% with asciminib vs 15.8% with bosutinib; the MMR rate difference between the arms, after adjusting for baseline MCyR, was 21.7% (95% CI, 10.53–32.95; two-sided p = 0.001). Fewer grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (56.4% vs 68.4%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (7.7% vs 26.3%) occurred with asciminib than with bosutinib. A higher proportion of patients on asciminib than bosutinib remained on treatment and continued to derive benefit over time, supporting asciminib as a standard of care for patients with CML-CP previously treated with ≥2 TKIs.

The role of antiplatelet therapy as primary prophylaxis of thrombosis in low-risk essential thrombocythemia has not been studied in randomized clinical trials. We assessed the benefit/risk of low-dose aspirin in 433 patients with low-risk essential thrombocythemia (271 with a CALR mutation, 162 with a JAK2^V617F mutation) who were on antiplatelet therapy or observation only. After a follow up of 2215 person-years free from cytoreduction, 25 thrombotic and 17 bleeding episodes were recorded. In CALR-mutated patients, antiplatelet therapy did not affect the risk of thrombosis but was associated with a higher incidence of bleeding (12.9 versus 1.8 episodes per 1000 patient-years, P=0.03). In JAK2^V617F-mutated patients, low-dose aspirin was associated with a reduced incidence of venous thrombosis with no effect on the risk of bleeding. Coexistence of JAK2^V617F-mutation and cardiovascular risk factors increased the risk of thrombosis, even after adjusting for treatment with low-dose aspirin (incidence rate ratio: 9.8; 95% confidence interval: 2.3–42.3; P=0.02). Time free from cytoreduction was significantly shorter in CALR-mutated patients with essential thrombocythemia than in JAK2^V617F-mutated ones (median time 5 years and 9.8 years, respectively; P=0.0002) and cytoreduction was usually necessary to control extreme thrombocytosis. In conclusion, in patients with low-risk, CALR-mutated essential thrombocythemia, low-dose aspirin does not reduce the risk of thrombosis and may increase the risk of bleeding.

Purpose ENESTfreedom is evaluating treatment-free remission (TFR) following frontline nilotinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase. Following our primary analysis at 48 weeks, we here provide an updated 96-week analysis. Methods Attempting TFR required ≥ 3 years of nilotinib, a molecular response of MR^4.5 [BCR-ABL1 ≤ 0.0032% on the International Scale (BCR-ABL1^IS)], and sustained deep molecular response (DMR) during a 1-year consolidation phase. Patients restarted nilotinib following loss of major molecular response (MMR; BCR-ABL1^IS ≤ 0.1%). Results Ninety-six weeks after stopping treatment (3.6-year median prior nilotinib duration), 93 of 190 patients (48.9%) remained in TFR. Of 88 patients who restarted nilotinib following loss of MMR, 87 regained MMR and 81 regained MR^4.5 by the data cut-off. Ninety-six-week TFR rates were 61.3, 50.0, and 28.6% in patients with low, intermediate, and high Sokal risk scores at diagnosis, respectively. Patients consistently in MR^4.5 during consolidation had higher TFR rates (50.6%) than patients with ≥ 1 assessment without MR^4.5 during consolidation (35.0%). In a landmark analysis, 96-week TFR rates for patients with MR^4.5, MR⁴ (BCR-ABL1^IS ≤ 0.01%) but not MR^4.5, and MMR but not MR⁴ at TFR week 12 were 82.6, 23.1, and 0%, respectively. There were no reports of disease progression or death due to CML; overall adverse event frequency decreased following TFR. Within the follow-up period, TFR did not adversely affect disease outcomes. Conclusions These results demonstrate the feasibility and durability of TFR following frontline nilotinib and emphasize the importance of sustained DMR for TFR.