Advertisement

International Journal of Hematology

, Volume 107, Issue 3, pp 327–336 | Cite as

Nilotinib vs. imatinib in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: long-term follow-up of the Japanese subgroup of the randomized ENESTnd trial

  • Hirohisa Nakamae
  • Tetsuya Fukuda
  • Chiaki Nakaseko
  • Yoshinobu Kanda
  • Ken Ohmine
  • Takaaki Ono
  • Itaru Matsumura
  • Akira Matsuda
  • Makoto Aoki
  • Kazuo Ito
  • Hirohiko Shibayama
Original Article

Abstract

In the ongoing, international, phase 3 study Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials–Newly Diagnosed Patients (ENESTnd), nilotinib 300 and nilotinib 400 mg, both twice daily, are compared with imatinib 400 mg once daily for the treatment of newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase (CML-CP). Results for the overall population in ENESTnd (n = 846) showed that nilotinib resulted in higher response rates vs. imatinib and was well tolerated. Outcomes among Japanese patients in ENESTnd were specifically analyzed after 1 year of follow-up, and showed similar trends to the overall population; we present updated analysis of the Japanese subgroup based on 5 years of follow-up. Among Japanese patients in the nilotinib 300-mg (n = 29), nilotinib 400-mg (n = 23), and imatinib (n = 25) arms, 86.2, 78.3, and 60.0%, respectively, achieved major molecular response [BCR-ABL1 ≤ 0.1% on the International Scale (BCR-ABL1 IS)] by 5 years, and 65.5, 69.6, and 40.0%, respectively, achieved MR4.5 (BCR-ABL1 IS ≤ 0.0032%). Safety results were consistent with prior reports. In this subgroup, one death occurred during treatment in the nilotinib 400-mg twice-daily arm (unknown cause), and one patient in each arm progressed to accelerated phase/blast crisis by the data cutoff.

Keywords

Chronic myeloid leukemia Tyrosine kinase inhibitor Nilotinib Imatinib 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Medical writing assistance for the preparation of this article was provided by Karen Kaluza, Ph.D. (ArticulateScience LLC) and funded by Novartis Pharma KK.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare the following relationships: Hirohisa Nakamae reports research funding from Novartis during the conduct of the study; consulting or advisory role, honoraria, and travel support from Novartis outside the submitted work; Tetsuya Fukuda reports honoraria from Novartis outside the submitted work; Chiaki Nakaseko reports research funding and honoraria from BMS and Pfizer outside the submitted work; honoraria from Novartis outside the submitted work; Yoshinobu Kanda reports personal fees from Novartis during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Dainippon-Sumitomo and Pfizer outside the submitted work; research funding and personal fees from Astellas, Kyowa-Hakko Kirin, Taisho-Toyama, and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work; research funding from Chugai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Tanabe Mitsubishi, Toyama Kagaku, Nippon Shinyaku, Alexion, Yakult, Shionogi, Otsuka, and Nippon Kayaku outside the submitted work; Ken Ohmine reports personal fees Takara Bio Inc., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development Inc. outside the submitted work; Takaaki Ono reports research funding from Celgene, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Toyama Kagaku, and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work; Itaru Matsumura reports research funding and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Japan Inc. during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Novartis Pharma KK during the conduct of the study; Akira Matsuda reports study fees from Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. and GlaxoSmithKline during the conduct of the study; research grant from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd., Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi KK, GlaxoSmithKline KK, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., outside the submitted work; Makoto Aoki is employed by Novartis Pharma KK; Kazuo Ito is employed by Novartis Pharma KK; Hirohiko Shibayama reports research funding, consulting or advisory role, honoraria and lecture fees from Novartis during the conduct of the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Saglio G, Kim DW, Issaragrisil S, le Coutre P, Etienne G, Lobo C, et al. Nilotinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2251–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tasigna (nilotinib) (package insert). East Hanover: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nakamae H, Shibayama H, Kurokawa M, Fukuda T, Nakaseko C, Kanda Y, et al. Nilotinib as frontline therapy for patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: results from the Japanese subgroup of ENESTnd. Int J Hematol. 2011;93:624–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hochhaus A, Saglio G, Hughes TP, Larson RA, Kim DW, Issaragrisil S, et al. Long-term benefits and risks of frontline nilotinib vs imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: 5-year update of the randomized ENESTnd trial. Leukemia. 2016;30:1044–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hughes TP, Larson RA, Kim DW, Issaragrisil S, le Coutre P, Lobo C, et al. Efficacy and safety of nilotinib vs imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: 6-year follow-up of ENESTnd. Haematologica. 2015;100(s1):81 (abstract P228).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kantarjian HM, Hochhaus A, Saglio G, De Souza C, Flinn IW, Stenke L, et al. Nilotinib versus imatinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase, Philadelphia chromosome-positive, chronic myeloid leukaemia: 24-month minimum follow-up of the phase 3 randomised ENESTnd trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:841–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larson RA, Hochhaus A, Hughes TP, Clark RE, Etienne G, Kim DW, et al. Nilotinib vs imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: ENESTnd 3-year follow-up. Leukemia. 2012;26:2197–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S, Albus C, Brotons C, Catapano AL, et al. 2016 European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: the Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts) developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2315–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stone NJ, Robinson J, Lichtenstein AH, Merz CNB, Blum CB, Eckel RH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129:S1–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2017. Diabetes Care. 2017;40:S1–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hochhaus A, Saglio G, Hughes TP, Larson RA, Taningco L, Deng W, et al. Impact of treatment with frontline nilotinib (NIL) vs imatinib (IM) on sustained deep molecular response (MR) in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP). Blood. 2015;126(23) (abstract 2781).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cortes JE, Saglio G, Kantarjian HM, Baccarani M, Mayer J, Boque C, et al. Final 5-year study results of DASISION: the Dasatinib Versus Imatinib Study in Treatment-Naive Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2333–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gambacorti-Passerini C, Cortes JE, Lipton JH, Dmoszynska A, Wong RS, Rossiev V, et al. Safety of bosutinib versus imatinib in the phase 3 BELA trial in newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2014;89:947–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lipton JH, Chuah C, Guerci-Bresler A, Rosti G, Simpson D, Assouline S, et al. Ponatinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia: an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:612–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D’Agostino RB, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, Wolf PA, Cobain M, Massaro JM, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117:743–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Chronic myeloid leukemia. v2.2017. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cml.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2017.

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Hematology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hirohisa Nakamae
    • 1
  • Tetsuya Fukuda
    • 2
  • Chiaki Nakaseko
    • 3
  • Yoshinobu Kanda
    • 4
  • Ken Ohmine
    • 5
  • Takaaki Ono
    • 6
  • Itaru Matsumura
    • 7
  • Akira Matsuda
    • 8
  • Makoto Aoki
    • 9
  • Kazuo Ito
    • 9
  • Hirohiko Shibayama
    • 10
  1. 1.HematologyOsaka City University HospitalOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of HematologyMedical Hospital of Tokyo Medical and Dental UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of HematologyChiba University HospitalChibaJapan
  4. 4.Division of HematologySaitama Medical Center Jichi Medical UniversitySaitamaJapan
  5. 5.Division of HematologyJichi Medical University HospitalTochigiJapan
  6. 6.Oncology CenterHamamatsu University HospitalShizuokaJapan
  7. 7.Department of HematologyKindai University HospitalOsakaJapan
  8. 8.Department of Hemato-Oncology, Saitama International Medical CenterSaitama Medical UniversitySaitamaJapan
  9. 9.Novartis Pharma KKTokyoJapan
  10. 10.Department of Hematology and OncologyOsaka University HospitalOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations