ReviewBlood research2026
Asciminib as first-line therapy in chronic myeloid leukemia: a systematic review.
Review in Blood research, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeChronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by the BCR::ABL1 fusion oncogene. Asciminib, a first-in-class STAMP (Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket) inhibitor, represents a novel therapeutic approach distinct from conventional ATP-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of asciminib as first-line therapy in patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries through December 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and compassionate use programs evaluating asciminib as first-line therapy in adult patients with chronic-phase CML. Primary outcomes included molecular response rates (major molecular response [MMR], MR4, and MR4.5), whereas secondary outcomes included safety profiles and treatment discontinuation rates.
resultsThe systematic review identified eight eligible studies comprising more than 500 patients. In the pivotal ASC4FIRST phase 3 trial (n = 405), asciminib demonstrated superior efficacy compared with investigator-selected TKIs. At 96 weeks, MMR rates were 74.1% with asciminib compared with 52.0% with investigator-selected TKIs (treatment difference, 22.4%; 95% CI, 13.6-31.3%; P < .001) and 76.2% with asciminib compared with 47.1% with imatinib (treatment difference, 29.7%; 95% CI, 17.6-41.8%; P < .001). The ASCEND study (n = 101) reported an MMR rate of 79% at 12 months. The safety profile was distinct from that of ATP-competitive TKIs. Hypertension occurred more frequently with asciminib (all grades, 10.5%; grade ≥ 3, 5.5%), whereas arterial occlusive events (all grades: asciminib, 2.0%; investigator-selected TKIs, 1.5%) and clinical pancreatitis (all grades, 1.0% in both groups) occurred at comparable rates between the treatment groups. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was lower with asciminib (5.0%) than with second-generation TKIs (12.7%).
conclusionAsciminib demonstrates superior efficacy and a favorable benefit-risk profile as first-line therapy for CML, with higher molecular response rates than both imatinib and second-generation TKIs. Asciminib also has a favorable tolerability and safety profile; however, close monitoring for cardiovascular and pancreatic toxicities is required. These findings support asciminib as an effective treatment option for newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML.
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.