Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Leukemia. 2012 Oct;26(10):2197-203. doi: 10.1038/leu.2012.134. Epub 2012 May 18.

Nilotinib vs imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: ENESTnd 3-year follow-up.

Author information

1
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. rlarson@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu

Abstract

Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in Clinical Trials Newly Diagnosed Patients compares nilotinib and imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP). With a minimum follow-up of 3 years, major molecular response, molecular response of BCR-ABL≤ 0.01% expressed on the international scale (BCR-ABL(IS); MR(4)) and BCR-ABL(IS)≤ 0.0032% (MR(4.5)) rates were significantly higher with nilotinib compared with imatinib, and differences in the depth of molecular response between nilotinib and imatinib have increased over time. No new progressions occurred on treatment since the 2-year analysis. Nilotinib was associated with a significantly lower probability of progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis vs imatinib (two (0.7%) progressions on nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, three (1.1%) on nilotinib 400 mg twice daily and 12 (4.2%) on imatinib). When considering progressions occurring after study treatment discontinuation, the advantage of nilotinib over imatinib in preventing progression remained significant (nine (3.2%) progressions on nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, six (2.1%) on nilotinib 400 mg twice daily and 19 (6.7%) on imatinib). Both nilotinib and imatinib were well tolerated, with minimal changes in safety over time. Nilotinib continues to demonstrate superior efficacy in all key response and outcome parameters compared with imatinib for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP.

PMID:
22699418
DOI:
10.1038/leu.2012.134
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Nature Publishing Group
Loading ...
Support Center