Trial reportCancer2016
A propensity score matching analysis of dasatinib and nilotinib as a frontline therapy for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase.
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 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Chromosomal Instability in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Mechanistic Insights and Effects.Cancers · 2022Review
- Adverse events and dose modifications of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myelogenous leukemia.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- South African study of blast phase chronic myeloid leukaemia: A poor prognostic outlook.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Improved survival with enasidenib versus standard of care in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia associated with IDH2 mutations using historical data and propensity score matching analysis.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- YY1 regulated transcription-based stratification of gastric tumors and identification of potential therapeutic candidates.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2021Article
- Current status and novel strategy of CML.International journal of hematology · 2021Review
- Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used in the management of chronic myeloid leukaemia are associated with haematologic toxicities-Which TKI is the safest?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Excellent outcomes of 2G-TKI therapy after imatinib failure in chronic phase CML patients.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Assessment of Dasatinib Versus Nilotinib as Upfront Therapy for Chronic Phase of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Qatar: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBoth dasatinib and nilotinib are approved frontline therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) based on randomized trials compared with imatinib. However, no head-to-head comparison of dasatinib and nilotinib has been conducted in patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP.
methodsThe authors conducted a propensity score (PS) matched comparison of patients with CML-CP who received frontline therapy with either dasatinib (N = 102) or nilotinib (N = 104) under the respective phase 2 trials conducted in parallel.
resultsPS matching resulted in 87 patients from each trial being matched for pretreatment characteristics. The 3-month BCR-ABL1/ABL1 ratio <10% rate was 93% with dasatinib and 94% with nilotinib (P = .25); the rates of major molecular response at 12 months were 77% and 85%, respectively (P = .13); and the rates of molecular response with 4.5-log reduction in the ratio at 36 months were 66% and 64%, respectively (P = .96). All other clinically relevant responses were similar between the 2 treatment cohorts. The 3-year probability of event-free survival was 89% among the patients who received dasatinib and 87% among those who received nilotinib (P = .99), and the corresponding 3-year overall survival probabilities were 99% and 93%, respectively (P = .95). No statistical difference was observed between the dasatinib and nilotinib groups in any of the other survival endpoints. The treatment discontinuation rate also was similar between the 2 cohorts (dasatinib group, 18%; nilotinib group, 19%; P = .82).
conclusionsIn a PS-matched cohort of patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP, dasatinib and nilotinib offer similar response and survival outcomes. Both drugs can be considered reasonable standard-of-care options as first-line therapy for patients with CML-CP. Cancer 2016;122:3336-3343. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.