Trial reportLeukemia2026
Nilotinib versus imatinib with early switch from imatinib to nilotinib to obtain treatment-free remission in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia patients: the analysis of the first co-primary endpoint.
Trial report in Leukemia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Targeting Osteoporosis-Osteoarthritis Comorbidity: Multi-Omics Identification of SON and Exploration of Therapeutic Agents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment-free remission is one of the most important goals of CML treatment but so far, the best treatment to reach this aim is still undefined, even though it is widely accepted that a sustained DMR is the prerequisite to discontinue TKI. Here we report on the depth of the molecular response, the first co-primary end point of the SUSTRENIM study, in a cohort of newly diagnosed CP-CML patients randomized 1:1 to be treated with nilotinib or with imatinib followed by switching to nilotinib in absence of optimal response. Of the 448 enrolled patients, 228 and 220 were randomized to the nilotinib (NIL) and imatinib (IM) arms, respectively, and followed for a median of 45.9 months. Eighty-two (37.2%) of the 220 patients on the IMarm did not fulfill the ELN criteria for optimal response of treatment and switched to nilotinib therapy. At the 24 months of follow-up, 107 of the 448 patients reached an MR4.5 response with a significantly higher frequency within the patients on the nilotinib arm (65 vs 42; p = 0.02). The analysis of the first primary endpoint indicates that, despite the early switch in the IM-randomized patients, NIL therapy is more effective to induce DMR.
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.