Chronic myelogenous leukemia

Expert opinion—management of chronic myeloid leukemia after resistance to second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Abstract

Regardless of line of therapy, treatment goals in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) are: avoid progression to accelerated phase or blast crisis CML such that patients achieve a life expectancy comparable with that of the general population; avoid adverse events (AEs); and restore and maintain quality of life. The most important prognostic factor for achieving these goals is response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) at key milestones. For patients failing a TKI, a treatment change is mandatory to limit the risk of progression and death. There is currently no precise guideline for patients that fail a second-generation TKI, and there is a paucity of data to guide clinical decision making in this setting. There is, therefore, an unmet need for practical and actionable guidance on how to manage patients who fail a second-generation TKI. Although the term ‘failure’ includes patients failing for resistance or intolerance, the focus of this paper is failure of a second-generation TKI because of resistance. CML patients who fail their first second-generation TKI for true resistance need a more potent therapy. In these patients, the key issues to consider are the relative appropriateness of early allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or the use of a further TKI. Selection of the next line of treatment after second-generation TKI resistance should be individualized and must be based on patient-specific factors including cytogenetics, mutation profile, comorbidities, age, previous history of AEs with prior TKI therapy, and risk profile for AEs on specific TKIs. This expert opinion paper is not in conflict with existing recommendations, but instead represents an evolution of previous notions, based on new data, insights, and clinical experience. We review the treatment options for patients resistant to second-generation TKI therapy and provide our clinical opinions and guidance on key considerations for treatment decision making.

Introduction

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have transformed long-term outcomes for patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) and life expectancy for these patients is now similar to that of the general population [1]. However, the term ‘chronic’ in CML masks the need for active treatment of a disease where most patients will require life-long TKI therapy. There should be a sense of urgency and timely intervention in the management of patients who fail to achieve recommended milestones [2] to ensure that CP-CML does not progress to a more aggressive disease. There are five TKIs currently approved for the treatment of CP-CML: imatinib, the first-generation TKI; nilotinib, dasatinib, and bosutinib, second-generation TKIs; and ponatinib, a third-generation TKI. The majority of patients with CP-CML receive imatinib as first-line (1L) treatment and achieve good long-term disease control [3]. Increasingly, patients receive a second-generation TKI as 1L treatment [4] for a variety of reasons. These include patient- and disease-related factors, treatment-related factors [5,6,7,8], and the goal of higher and/or faster probabilities of a treatment-free remission (TFR) attempt. However, no survival benefit has yet been demonstrated for any frontline second-generation TKI over imatinib [2, 5, 9].

There are some data for outcomes with second-generation TKI after imatinib failure [10,11,12]. In contrast, there is a paucity of data to guide clinical decision-making following failure of second-generation TKI, whether this has been used in 1L or second-line (2L) therapy. Currently, there is no precise guideline for patients that fail a second-generation TKI: existing recommendations include (at the same level) the use of another second-generation TKI, ponatinib, a clinical trial, or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). There is therefore an unmet need for practical and actionable guidance on how to manage patients who fail a second-generation TKI.

Purpose of this paper and methodology

CML patients who fail their first second-generation TKI for true resistance need a more potent therapy. In these patients, the key issues to consider are the relative appropriateness of early allo-HSCT or the use of a further TKI. Selection of the next line of treatment after second-generation TKI resistance should be individualized and must be based on patient-specific factors including cytogenetics, mutation profile, comorbidities, age, previous history of adverse events (AEs) with prior TKI therapy and risk profile for AEs on specific TKIs. This expert opinion paper is not in conflict with existing recommendations, but instead represents an evolution of previous notions, based on new data, insights, and clinical experience. The panel members review treatment options for patients resistant to second-generation TKI therapy and provide our clinical opinions and guidance on key considerations for treatment decision making. Panel members corresponded via teleconference calls and mail exchanges to finalize an agreed consensus. No honoraria were received for this project.

Goals of treatment in CP-CML

Regardless of line of therapy, treatment goals in CP-CML are to avoid progression to accelerated phase or blast crisis CML such that patients achieve a life expectancy comparable with that of the general population; to avoid AEs; and to restore and maintain quality of life. For specific categories of patients, TFR can also be considered a potential goal of 1L therapy once appropriate and sustained clinical response has been achieved. Response to TKI is the most important prognostic factor: only patients achieving complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) or major molecular response (MMR) at key milestones achieve good outcomes. For patients failing a TKI, a treatment change is mandatory to limit the risk of progression and death.

Definition of ‘failure’ to TKI treatment

Although the term ‘failure’ includes patients failing for resistance or intolerance, the focus of these recommendations is failure of a second-generation TKI because of resistance. Primary resistance indicates a failure to achieve a target response at a given time point, while secondary resistance indicates loss of a prior response [13].

There are precise recommendations for monitoring molecular response by regular assessment of BCR-ABL1 transcript levels at critical milestones (3, 6, and 12 months). Real-time quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction should be used and results reported on the International Scale using an appropriate control gene. The European LeukemiaNet (ELN) [2] and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) [14] have defined TKI failure and are generally aligned. ELN 2020 definitions for failure are summarized in Table 1 [2].

Table 1 ELN 2020 definitions of failure to 1L and 2L treatment [2].

From a practical perspective, when should a patient be considered as failing a second-generation TKI? ELN 2013 recommendations defined failure to 1L and 2L therapy with different milestones, being less stringent for 2L therapy [15]. The 2020 version has changed this view. The need for a more stringent definition of failure has been implemented, such that those patients not achieving BCR-ABL1 ≤ 1% (or CCyR) at 12 months, including those receiving 2L therapy, should be considered as failing treatment [2].

Treatment options after resistance to a second-generation TKI

An important minority of patients becomes resistant to a second-generation TKI and will require an alternative treatment. Note that the situation for patients failing a second-generation TKI in the 1L setting versus those failing a second-generation TKI in the 2L setting differs and the route to resistance is different [16]: patients failing a 1L second-generation TKI may represent a population of patients with an unfavorable prognosis.

For patients with CP-CML who are resistant to a second-generation TKI, mutational analysis should be performed, comorbidities assessed, and the search for a suitable donor for allo-HSCT should be initiated. Treatment should then be decided based on mutation profile and comorbidities (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Considerations and treatment options after second-generation TKI resistance.
figure1

aPonatinib dose based on comorbidities and mutation profile.

BCR-ABL1 mutation analysis should be carried out following failure of a second-generation TKI, using either conventional Sanger sequencing or the more sensitive next-generation sequencing (NGS). Mutation results can guide selection of the most appropriate TKI and prevent the use of an inappropriate TKI. Heat maps [17, 18] and tables [7, 19, 20] are available to guide second-generation TKI selection according to mutation type. NGS can detect low-level mutations present below the sensitivity threshold of Sanger sequencing and can reveal compound mutations. However, at the time of documented resistance, these low-level mutations may not be drivers of resistance to TKI therapy and generally do not guide TKI selection. One exception, however, is the detection of the BCR-ABL1 T315I mutation that would prompt use of ponatinib, even if present at low levels. Although the role of compound mutations as drivers of TKI resistance has not been clearly defined, they are of clinical concern, and their detection would tend to support selection of ponatinib or allo-HSCT.

A key recommendation is that the search for a donor should commence as soon as the patient fails a second-generation TKI: allo-HSCT can offer the prospect of long-term survival for eligible patients. Though a fully human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched related donor is optimal for HSCT, approximately two-thirds of patients requiring HSCT do not have a matched related donor and rely on the identification of an HLA-matched unrelated or a haploidentical donor. The search for a matched unrelated donor can take on average 3–4 months, during which time patients may progress or become unfit for transplant [21], and in this situation the use of a haploidentical donor may be the preferred option. For patients who are not transplant eligible and who have exhausted all available TKIs, a trial of an exploratory treatment is appropriate.

Following resistance to a second-generation TKI, an alternative second-generation TKI might be an option (e.g., after resistance to imatinib and nilotinib, subsequent treatment with dasatinib or bosutinib is feasible, also depending on specific mutations, if present). However, treatment with a third-generation TKI (ponatinib) should be considered for all eligible patients. A role for earlier ponatinib use is especially evident for patients demonstrating resistance to second-generation TKIs in both the 1L and 2L settings. Our recommendation is based on evidence from various studies. Less than 10% of patients (N = 113) receiving a second-generation TKI (nilotinib or dasatinib) who fail to achieve a cytogenetic response at 3–6 months eventually attained the target of major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at 12 months [22]. Although there are no head-to-head trials, and reported studies enrolled low patient numbers, in the absence of a mutation sensitive to an alternative second-generation TKI, there appears to be limited value of using another second-generation TKI after failure of a prior second-generation TKI. Response rates (CCyR) for sequential nilotinib/dasatinib range from around 10 to 35% across studies in third-line (3L) or later, and many of the patients who responded received the second-generation TKI for intolerance rather than resistance (Table 2). Furthermore, only low numbers of patients remained on treatment, indicating a substantial rate of failure across studies [23,24,25,26,27,28]. Primary results from the phase 4 BYOND study of bosutinib in second and later-line therapy of CML demonstrated a CCyR rate of 84% in the third-line setting (n = 56; Table 2) [29]. When response was assessed according to resistance or intolerance across the whole population (evaluable n = 144) and irrespective of line of therapy, CCyR rates were similar (77% and 87% in resistant and intolerant patients, respectively) though MMR rates were lower for resistant patients (46%; n = 48) compared with intolerant patients (81%; n = 31) [29].

Table 2 Response to second-generation TKIs in 3L (or later) treatment of CP-CMLa,b.

In a phase 1/2 study of bosutinib in 3L or later, the probability of newly attained CCyR was 26% and, after 4 years of follow-up, only 24% of patients were still on treatment [30]. A recent retrospective analysis of the largest cohort of patients (N = 62) treated with fourth-line bosutinib, after failing imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib, reported a 25% probability of achieving or maintaining CCyR and 24% probability of achieving MMR (median 14 months follow-up). However, patients not in CCyR at the time of bosutinib start were least likely to achieve a molecular response (14% probability of achieving MMR) [31].

The PACE trial was a phase 2 study of ponatinib in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML or acute lymphoblastic leukemia resistant/intolerant to dasatinib or nilotinib, or carrying the BCR-ABL1 T315I mutation. Final 5-year results demonstrated that 54% and 60% of CP-CML patients resistant to two or more prior TKIs achieved CCyR and MCyR, respectively, at any point, with 82% of responders estimated to remain in MCyR at 5 years [32]. CP-CML patients who received fewer prior TKIs attained higher cytogenetic and molecular responses. Of CP-CML patients previously treated with one (n = 16), two (n = 98), three (n = 141), or four (n = 12) prior TKIs, 75%, 70%, 49%, and 58% achieved an MCyR, respectively; 63%, 42%, 36%, and 8% achieved an MMR, respectively [33]. The median time to MCyR or CCyR was within 3 months [32], which would allow early identification of patients unlikely to respond and aligns with the period for donor search.

The starting dose of ponatinib for patients with CP-CML (15, 30, or 45 mg/day) should be decided based on comorbidities and mutation profile (e.g., being aware that a higher dose may be required for patients with aggressive mutations such as E255V or compound mutations). Dose adjustments should then be made according to response and tolerability. However, dose reduction may lead to loss of response. In the PACE trial, preemptive dose reductions were implemented to decrease the risk of arterial occlusive events. Overall ≥90% of CP-CML patients who had achieved MCyR or MMR maintained response 40 months after elective dose reductions [32]. A retrospective analysis of low-dose (15 mg) ponatinib as a starting or de-escalated dose in CP-CML patients (N = 62) reported a 55% CCyR rate, and a response of MMR or better was maintained in 35/54 patients (65%) at a median 21 months follow-up [34]. Registry US data for CP-CML patients receiving ponatinib (n = 475) indicate that 47% received a starting dose of 45 mg/day, 29% received 30 mg/day, and 24% received 15 mg/day [35]. The mutation status should also be considered when considering dose adjustments, as the concentration should be adequate to suppress mutations and provide disease control. Prospective dose evaluation studies are ongoing (e.g., OPTIC, NCT02467270) [36,37,38] and may provide information on the optimal starting dose for ponatinib.

Each TKI has an associated toxicity profile, which requires certain patients to be carefully selected and monitored during treatment (Table 3). Factors that need to be considered before selecting ponatinib include patients’ cardiovascular (CV) risk, metabolic disease, concomitant medications, and comorbidities. Although CV AEs have been reported for all TKIs, the relative risk is highest with ponatinib [32, 39]. Thus, the potential benefits of ponatinib treatment must be balanced against the potential risks, but there is no absolute contraindication of any TKI based on comorbidities.

Table 3 Cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic AEs associated with each TKI (Adapted from [40]).

Treatment options for patients in whom ponatinib is not appropriate

The clinical picture is complex for patients resistant to a second-generation TKI, but for whom ponatinib is not deemed appropriate. Clear-cut recommendations are not possible for this heterogeneous population who are also likely to be ineligible for transplant. However, another second-generation TKI (depending on mutation profile, comorbidities, previous AEs to TKI therapy, and other factors previously described) or a clinical trial are both rational options.

Consideration of when transplantation may be appropriate

Early consideration of allo-HSCT is crucial and should be discussed with the patient as soon as possible following second-generation TKI resistance. The heterogeneity of transplant risks (e.g., non-relapse mortality or graft-versus-host disease) means that the decision of whether or not to transplant patients in CP is complex. There is currently no definitive consensus, rather each decision must be based on individual benefit–risk assessment. However, to delay transplant until all available TKIs have been exhausted would be inappropriate for some patients, especially those with unfavorable parameters who may not benefit from further TKI treatment. The presence of high risk additional chromosomal aberrations (complex karyotypes, isochromosome 17, abnormalities in chromosome 3, monosomy 7, and trisomy 8) is a trigger for transplant [41]. In cases without any unfavorable parameters, alternative TKI therapy (or a clinical trial) may be appropriate. Treatment strategies that result in delayed referral for transplant with the associated risk of disease progression that may compromise patient eligibility for allo-HSCT are not recommended. For example, an indication where it may be appropriate to transplant before using ponatinib is in very young patients with an available matched sibling donor. Specific recommendations regarding induction, conditioning, and maintenance regimens are outside the scope of this paper.

Considered for long-term TKI treatment

The focus of these recommendations is on patients failing second-generation TKI for resistance rather than intolerance. However, for a patient who needs ponatinib but has CV issues (such as a history of myocardial infarction) it may be appropriate to exercise caution and start with a lower dose of ponatinib (if not eligible for allo-HSCT), while for other patients with no CV risk but with an aggressive CML then the ponatinib 45 mg starting dose should be considered. Note that ponatinib dose can be reduced once the desired response is achieved. The approach to patient management must take into account not just AEs but also comorbidities, which (though independent of CML) have an equal impact on treatment choice. Selection of the best treatment option must be personalized to the individual patient, achieving efficacy while preventing AEs. If TKI-related AEs do occur, there is guidance on their management [42].

TFR after resistance to a second-generation TKI

Although TFR is becoming an increasingly desired goal of treatment, any TFR attempt in patients who have demonstrated resistance to a second-generation TKI would be premature and is not currently recommended.

Final thoughts: managing patients after second-generation TKI resistance

Despite the range of options discussed, there may be patients for whom none is appropriate (i.e., patients unable to receive ponatinib or a second-generation TKI, and ineligible for clinical trial or allo-HSCT). In such cases, use of interferon-alpha and/or best supportive care for disease and symptom control could be appropriate and realistic treatment options. The CML treatment landscape evolves rapidly with new insights and better understanding driving development of novel therapeutic approaches. Several approaches and hypotheses are being explored, including strategies to overcome BCR-ABL1-independent inhibition and mutation-mediated resistance, and strategies targeting leukemia stem cells. For now, these approaches and hypotheses remain exploratory and there are insufficient data or evidence to guide clinical decisions.

Treatment goals for patients in CP-CML with resistance to a second-generation TKI are unchanged regardless of line of therapy. The current evidence base does allow certain recommendations to be made following second-generation TKI resistance. Transplant should be considered early to allow timely initiation of donor search. Eligible patients should receive a third-generation TKI (especially in cases where no known mutation is driving resistance) with dose modification considered as clinically appropriate. Depending on mutation profile, another second-generation TKI may also be feasible. For patients unable to receive ponatinib, clinical trials of newer agents or allo-HSCT if all possible TKI options are exhausted, are options. Asciminib, a TKI that has shown promising phase 1 data in heavily pretreated patients may be a future option for these patients [43].

References

  1. 1.

    Bower H, Bjorkholm M, Dickman PW, Hoglund M, Lambert PC, Andersson TM. Life expectancy of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia approaches the life expectancy of the general population. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2851–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hochhaus A, Baccarani M, Silver RT, Schiffer C, Apperley JF, Cervantes F, et al. European LeukemiaNet 2020 recommendations for treating chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2020;34:966–84.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hochhaus A, Larson RA, Guilhot F, Radich JP, Branford S, Hughes TP, et al. Long-term outcomes of imatinib treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:917–27.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Goldberg SL, Cortes JE, Gambacorti-Passerini C, Hehlmann R, Khoury HJ, Michallet M, et al. First-line treatment selection and early monitoring patterns in chronic phase-chronic myeloid leukemia in routine clinical practice: SIMPLICITY. Am J Hematol. 2017;92:1214–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lee SG, Lipton JH. Everything old is new again: the case for imatinib as frontline therapy in 2017. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2017;15:302–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Fava C, Saglio G. The biology of CML supports second-generation TKIs as frontline treatment. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2017;15:302–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Baccarani M, Castagnetti F, Gugliotta G, Rosti G. A review of the European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management of CML. Ann Hematol. 2015;94(Suppl 2):S141–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Saglio G, Jabbour E. First-line therapy for chronic phase CML: selecting the optimal BCR-ABL1-targeted TKI. Leuk Lymphoma. 2018;59:1523–38.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Jabbour E. Chronic myeloid leukemia: first-line drug of choice. Am J Hematol. 2016;91:59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gambacorti-Passerini C, Aroldi A, Cordani N, Piazza R. Chronic myeloid leukemia: second-line drugs of choice. Am J Hematol. 2016;91:67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Giles FJ, le Coutre PD, Pinilla-Ibarz J, Larson RA, Gattermann N, Ottmann OG, et al. Nilotinib in imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: 48-month follow-up results of a phase II study. Leukemia. 2013;27:107–12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Shah NP, Rousselot P, Schiffer C, Rea D, Cortes JE, Milone J, et al. Dasatinib in imatinib-resistant or -intolerant chronic-phase, chronic myeloid leukemia patients: 7-year follow-up of study CA180-034. Am J Hematol. 2016;91:869–74.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hochhaus A, La Rosée P. Imatinib therapy in chronic myelogenous leukemia: strategies to avoid and overcome resistance. Leukemia. 2004;18:1321–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hochhaus A, Saussele S, Rosti G, Mahon FX, Janssen J, Hjorth-Hansen H, et al. Chronic myeloid leukaemia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:iv41–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Baccarani M, Deininger MW, Rosti G, Hochhaus A, Soverini S, Apperley JF, et al. European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management of chronic myeloid leukemia: 2013. Blood. 2013;122:872–84.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Milojkovic D, Apperley J. Mechanisms of resistance to imatinib and second-generation tyrosine inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:7519–27.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    O’Hare T, Eide CA, Deininger MW. Bcr-Abl kinase domain mutations, drug resistance, and the road to a cure for chronic myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2007;110:2242–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Redaelli S, Mologni L, Rostagno R, Piazza R, Magistroni V, Ceccon M, et al. Three novel patient-derived BCR/ABL mutants show different sensitivity to second and third generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Am J Hematol. 2012;87:E125–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Soverini S, De Benedittis C, Mancini M, Martinelli G. Best practices in chronic myeloid leukemia monitoring and management. Oncologist. 2016;21:626–33.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Soverini S, De Benedittis C, Polakova KM, Linhartova J, Castagnetti F, Gugliotta G, et al. Next-generation sequencing for sensitive detection of BCR-ABL1 mutations relevant to tyrosine kinase inhibitor choice in imatinib-resistant patients. Oncotarget. 2016;7:21982–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ciurea SO, Bittencourt MCB, Milton DR, Cao K, Kongtim P, Rondon G, et al. Is a matched unrelated donor search needed for all allogeneic transplant candidates? Blood Adv. 2018;2:2254–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Tam CS, Kantarjian H, Garcia-Manero G, Borthakur G, O’Brien S, Ravandi F, et al. Failure to achieve a major cytogenetic response by 12 months defines inadequate response in patients receiving nilotinib or dasatinib as second or subsequent line therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2008;112:516–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Garg RJ, Kantarjian H, O’Brien S, Quintas-Cardama A, Faderl S, Estrov Z, et al. The use of nilotinib or dasatinib after failure to 2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors: long-term follow-up. Blood. 2009;114:4361–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ribeiro BF, Miranda EC, Albuquerque DM, Delamain MT, Oliveira-Duarte G, Almeida MH, et al. Treatment with dasatinib or nilotinib in chronic myeloid leukemia patients who failed to respond to two previously administered tyrosine kinase inhibitors—a single center experience. Clinics. 2015;70:550–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Lomaia E, Zaritskey A, Shuvaev V, Martynkevich I, Fominykh M, Ovsyannikova E, et al. Efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in third line therapy in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2015;126:4051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Giles FJ, Abruzzese E, Rosti G, Kim DW, Bhatia R, Bosly A, et al. Nilotinib is active in chronic and accelerated phase chronic myeloid leukemia following failure of imatinib and dasatinib therapy. Leukemia. 2010;24:1299–301.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Cortes J, Quintas-Cardama A, Jabbour E, O’Brien S, Verstovsek S, Borthakur G, et al. The clinical significance of achieving different levels of cytogenetic response in patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia after failure to front-line therapy: is complete cytogenetic response the only desirable endpoint? Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011;11:421–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ibrahim AR, Paliompeis C, Bua M, Milojkovic D, Szydlo R, Khorashad JS, et al. Efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as third-line therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase who have failed 2 prior lines of TKI therapy. Blood. 2010;116:5497–500.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hochhaus A, Gambacorti-Passerini C, Abboud C, Gjertsen BT, Brümmendorf TH, Smith BD, et al. Primary results of the phase 4 BYOND study of bosutinib for pretreated chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia. Amsterdam: European Hematology Association; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Cortes JE, Khoury HJ, Kantarjian HM, Lipton JH, Kim DW, Schafhausen P, et al. Long-term bosutinib for chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia after failure of imatinib plus dasatinib and/or nilotinib. Am J Hematol. 2016;91:1206–14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    García-Gutiérrez V, Milojkovic D, Hernandez-Boluda JC, Claudiani S, Martin Mateos ML, Casado-Montero LF, et al. Safety and efficacy of bosutinib in fourth-line therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia patients. Ann Hematol. 2019;98:321–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Cortes JE, Kim DW, Pinilla-Ibarz J, le Coutre PD, Paquette R, Chuah C, et al. Ponatinib efficacy and safety in Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemia: final 5-year results of the phase 2 PACE trial. Blood. 2018;132:393–404.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hochhaus A, Cortes JE, Kim D-W, Pinilla-Ibarz J, le Coutre PD, Paquette R, et al. Efficacy and safety of ponatinib in CP-CML patients by number of prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors: 4-year follow-up of the phase 2 PACE trial. Blood. 2015;126:4025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Binotto G, Castagnetti F, Gugliotta G, Abruzzese E, Iurlo A, Stagno F, et al. Ponatinib 15 mg daily, combining efficacy and tolerability. A retrospective survey in Italy. Stockholm: European Hematology Association; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Mauro MJ, McGarry LJ, Lustgarten S, Huang H. Predictors of ponatinib therapy duration among real-world chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) patients in the US. Blood. 2016;128:3081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    García-Gutiérrez V, Cortes J, Deininger MW, Baer M, Kota VK, Akard L, et al. The OPTIC study: a multi-center, randomized phase 2 trial with response-based dose reduction to evaluate three starting doses of ponatinib. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2016;16:S59–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Activity and risk profile of ponatinib in chronic phase patients with chronic myeloid leukemia resistant to imatinib. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02398825.

  38. 38.

    Ponatinib in participants with resistant chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) to characterize the efficacy and safety of a range of doses. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02467270.

  39. 39.

    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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Medeiros BC, Possick J, Fradley M. Cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic toxicities complicating tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in chronic myeloid leukemia: strategies for monitoring, detecting, and managing. Blood Rev. 2018;32:289–99.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Hehlmann R, Voskanyan A, Lauseker M, Pfirrmann M, Kalmanti L, Rinaldetti S, et al. High-risk additional chromosomal abnormalities at low blast counts herald death by CML. Leukemia. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-020-0826-9.

  42. 42.

    Steegmann JL, Baccarani M, Breccia M, Casado LF, Garcia-Gutierrez V, Hochhaus A, et al. European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management and avoidance of adverse events of treatment in chronic myeloid leukaemia. Leukemia. 2016;30:1648–71.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Hughes TP, Mauro MJ, Cortes JE, Minami H, Rea D, DeAngelo DJ, et al. Asciminib in chronic myeloid leukemia after ABL kinase inhibitor failure. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2315–26.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Medical writing assistance was provided by Alligent Europe (Envision Pharma Group), funded by Incyte Biosciences International.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Hochhaus.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Members of the expert panel declare the following potential conflicts of interest: AH, Research support: BMS, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer. Honoraria: BMS, Fusion Pharma, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda. MB, Honoraria: Celgene, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer. GS, No financial relationship to disclose. VGG, Research support: BMS, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer. Honoraria: BMS, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer. DR, Honoraria: BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Incyte. JJ, Research support: Novartis, BMS; Honoraria: Pfizer, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie; Founder of Apps for Care and Science Foundation, developer of the HematologyApp. This non-profit organization is supported by Amgen, Sanofi-Genzyme, Takeda, Jazz, Roche, Servier, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, Incyte and BMS. JFA, Research support: Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer. Honoraria: BMS, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer. None of the authors received an honorarium for this specific work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hochhaus, A., Breccia, M., Saglio, G. et al. Expert opinion—management of chronic myeloid leukemia after resistance to second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Leukemia 34, 1495–1502 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-020-0842-9

Download citation

Further reading