Trial reportCancer medicine2025
Quality-Adjusted Time Without Symptoms of Disease or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Comparison of Ponatinib Versus Imatinib.
Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03589326 (A Phase 3, Randomized, Open-label, Multicenter Study Comparing Ponatinib Versus Imatinib, Administered in Combination With Reduced-Intensity Chemotherapy, in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Phase 3, Randomized, Open-label, Multicenter Study Comparing Ponatinib Versus Imatinib, Administered in Combination With Reduced-Intensity Chemotherapy, in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (Ph+ ALL)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Toward a chemotherapy and allo-HSCT free future: the evolution of treatment for Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the phase 3 ponatinib-3001 trial (PhALLCON, NCT03589326), ponatinib demonstrated superior efficacy over imatinib with comparable safety in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL). This post hoc analysis evaluated the net benefits of ponatinib using a quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) approach.
methodsOverall survival (OS) time for patients from PhALLCON was partitioned into three health states: TOX (time with grade 3+ treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs] before disease progression), TWiST (time without toxicity before progression), and REL (time from progression until death or end of follow-up). Q-TWiST was calculated as the sum of health utility-weighted restricted mean durations of the three states. A relative Q-TWiST gain of ≥ 10% was considered clinically important. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying TOX and REL utilities, follow-up time, and the TOX definition (using grade 2+ TEAEs or patient-perceived treatment tolerability assessed by the FACT-GP5).
resultsAmong all randomized patients (ponatinib n = 164, imatinib n = 81), restricted mean OS was similar between arms (1082.2 vs. 1024.8 days; p = 0.373). In the base-case analysis, mean TWiST was 214.5 days longer with ponatinib versus imatinib (95% CI 70.3-358.7; p = 0.004), REL was shorter by 175.9 days (325.4-26.5; p = 0.021), and TOX was not significantly different between arms (p = 0.228). The relative Q-TWiST gain (10.98%) was clinically important. Sensitivity analyses consistently supported the robustness of the base-case findings.
conclusionPonatinib may prolong quality-adjusted survival compared with imatinib, supporting the benefit-risk profile of ponatinib as a front-line treatment for Ph+ ALL.
trial registrationNCT03589326.
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.