Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27479888›Full record

Trial reportCancer2016

Hyper-CVAD plus ponatinib versus hyper-CVAD plus dasatinib as frontline therapy for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A propensity score analysis.

Koji Sasaki, Elias J Jabbour, Farhad Ravandi, Nicholas J Short, Deborah A Thomas, Guillermo Garcia-Manero, Naval G Daver, Tapan M Kadia, Marina Y Konopleva, Nitin Jain and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 196 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Koji SasakiDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Elias J JabbourDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Farhad RavandiDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Nicholas J ShortDivision of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Deborah A ThomasDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Guillermo Garcia-ManeroDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Naval G DaverDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Tapan M KadiaDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Marina Y KonoplevaDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Nitin JainDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ghayas C IssaDivision of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Vicki JeanisDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Haim G MooreDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Rebecca S GarrisDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Naveen PemmarajuDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jorge E CortesDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Susan M O'BrienClinical Science, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at Irvine, Orange, California.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3386-6540
Hagop M KantarjianDepartment of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USTokyo Medical and Dental University · JPUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical efficacy of hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (HCVAD) plus ponatinib has not been compared with that of HCVAD plus dasatinib in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL) in a randomized clinical trial.

methodsThe authors analyzed 110 patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL who were enrolled in 2 consecutive, prospective, phase 2 clinical trials of frontline HCVAD with either dasatinib (63 patients) or ponatinib (47 patients). Propensity score analysis with 1:1 matching with the nearest neighbor matching method and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis based on the propensity scores were performed to assess response rates, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS) between the cohorts.

resultsPropensity score matching identified 41 patients in each cohort. With propensity score matching, the 3-year EFS rates for patients treated with HCVAD plus ponatinib and HCVAD plus dasatinib were 69% and 46%, respectively (P =.04), and the 3-year OS rates were 83% and 56%, respectively (P =.03). IPTW analysis using prematching cohorts demonstrated that patients treated with HCVAD plus ponatinib had significantly higher rates of minimal residual disease negativity by flow cytometry on day 21, complete cytogenetic response at complete response, major molecular response at complete response and at 3 months, and complete molecular response at 3 months. IPTW confirmed that treatment with HCVAD plus ponatinib was associated with longer EFS (P =.003) and OS (P =.001) compared with treatment with HCVAD plus dasatinib.

conclusionsThe clinical outcome of patients treated with HCVAD plus ponatinib appears to be superior to that of patients treated with HCVAD plus dasatinib among individuals with Ph+ ALL. Cancer 2016;122:3650-6. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCyclophosphamideDasatinibDexamethasoneDisease-Free SurvivalDoxorubicinFemaleHumansImidazolesMaleMiddle AgedPhiladelphia ChromosomePrecursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-LymphomaCyclophosphamideDasatinibDexamethasoneDoxorubicinImidazolesponatinibPyridazinesVincristineacute lymphoblastic leukemiadasatinibdexamethasone (hyper-CVAD [HCVAD])doxorubicinhyperfractionated cyclophosphamidePhiladelphia chromosomeponatinibvincristine

Identifiers

PMID27479888
PMCPMC5321539
OpenAlexW2483008971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.