Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24532039›Full record

Trial reportHaematologica2014

Safety and efficacy of switching to nilotinib 400 mg twice daily for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase with suboptimal response or failure on front-line imatinib or nilotinib 300 mg twice daily.

Timothy P Hughes, Andreas Hochhaus, Hagop M Kantarjian, Francisco Cervantes, François Guilhot, Dietger Niederwieser, Philipp D le Coutre, Gianantonio Rosti, Gert Ossenkoppele, Clarisse Lobo and 6 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Haematologica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Chronic myeloid leukemia: sequencing of TKI therapies.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2016
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Timothy P HughesSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Australia Division of Haematology and Centre for Cancer Biology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia timothy.hughes@health.sa.gov.au.
Andreas HochhausAbteilung Hämatologie/Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Germany.
Hagop M KantarjianThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Francisco CervantesIDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Spain.
François GuilhotInserm CIC 0802, CHU de Poitiers, France.
Dietger NiederwieserDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of Leipzig, Germany.
Philipp D le CoutreCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Gianantonio RostiUniversity of Bologna, Italy.
Gert OssenkoppeleVU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clarisse LoboHEMORIO, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Hirohiko ShibayamaOsaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Xiaolin FanNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA.
Hans D MenssenNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Charisse KempNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA.
Richard A LarsonThe University of Chicago, IL, USA.
Giuseppe SaglioUniversity of Turin, Orbassano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a randomized, phase III trial of nilotinib versus imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase, more patients had suboptimal response or treatment failure on front-line imatinib than on nilotinib. Patients with suboptimal response/treatment failure on imatinib 400 mg once or twice daily or nilotinib 300 mg twice daily could enter an extension study to receive nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. After a 19-month median follow up, the safety profile of nilotinib 400 mg twice daily in patients switching from imatinib (n=35) was consistent with previous reports, and few new adverse events occurred in patients escalating from nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (n=19). Of patients previously treated with imatinib or nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, respectively, 15 of 26 (58%) and 2 of 6 (33%) without complete cytogenetic response at extension study entry, and 11 of 34 (32%) and 7 of 18 (39%) without major molecular response at extension study entry, achieved these responses at any time on nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. Estimated 18-month rates of freedom from progression and overall survival after entering the extension study were lower for patients switched from imatinib (85% and 87%, respectively) versus nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (95% and 94%, respectively). Nilotinib dose escalation was generally well tolerated and improved responses in about one-third of patients with suboptimal response/treatment failure. Switch to nilotinib improved responses in some patients with suboptimal response/treatment failure on imatinib, but many did not achieve complete cytogenetic response (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 00718263, 00471497 - extension).

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBenzamidesDrug SubstitutionFollow-Up StudiesHumansImatinib MesylateLeukemia, Myeloid, Chronic-PhasePiperazinesProtein Kinase InhibitorsPyrimidinesTreatment FailureTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsBenzamidesImatinib MesylatenilotinibPiperazinesProtein Kinase InhibitorsPyrimidines

Identifiers

PMID24532039
PMCPMC4077082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.