ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
GIMEMA survey on the management of chronic myeloid leukemia patients in the third line and beyond: insights from Italian hematologists.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Approximately one-third of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients may develop resistance and/or intolerance to the current therapies and need to switch to later lines of treatment. However, how to choose a later line of therapy is still a matter of discussion. Methods: A survey was performed by the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell'Adulto (GIMEMA) to understand how the scenario has changed after the introduction of the first allosteric inhibitor, asciminib, in later lines. Results: The GIMEMA survey aimed to reassess the Italian approach to third-line or later-line treatments in CML. In the whole cohort of 1,637 patients, to treat resistance, ponatinib was used with a mean of 41% [standard deviation (SD) = 29] and a median of 50% (0-100), while asciminib was used with a mean of 27% (SD = 23) and a median of 25% (0-100). Indeed, to treat intolerance, asciminib was the most used with a mean of 32% (SD = 30) and a median of 30 (0-100), followed by bosutinib with a mean of 25% (SD = 25) and a median of 20 (0-90). Several possible treatment sequences were analyzed, and asciminib emerged as the best third-line treatment. Conclusions: The survey attempted to understand the major reasons for treatment switch, how tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were selected, and which drug was preferred based on patient and disease characteristics. The current algorithm of treatment seems to have changed in both resistant and intolerant CML patients in later lines. The reduction of TKI dose is a current practice to maintain efficacy while reducing the occurrence of side effects.
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.