Outcomes of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia receiving second-line therapy after failure of frontline second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor

F Fadi Haddad H Hagop Kantarjian (2Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX) S Sara Dellasala (1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States) G Ghayas Issa (2Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX) T Tapan Kadia (2Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX) J Jayastu Senapati (The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center) R Rita Khouri (1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States) N Nicholas Short (1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States) C Courtney DiNardo (1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States) N Nitin Jain H Hussein Abbas (1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Leukemia, Houston, United States) K Kelly Chien (1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States) A Anwesha Ray (1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States) N Naveen Pemmaraju (The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States) F Farhad Ravandi (Department of Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA) G Guillermo Garcia-Manero K Koji Sasaki (1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX) E Elias Jabbour (Department of Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA)

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Some patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) eventually develop disease resistance or treatment intolerance after first-line therapy (1L) with a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (2G-TKI). Second-line therapy (2L) with a 2G-TKI is standard of care. However, outcomes with 2L after 1L 2G-TKI failure are not well described. Methods We retrospectively reviewed pts diagnosed with CML in chronic phase (CP) or accelerated phase (clonal evolution only) between May 2000-November 2023, treated with 1L 2G-TKI, and identified the reasons for switching to 2L. We then analyzed the type of 2L received, the best response achieved, and survival outcomes. Results 276 pts were included, 258 (94%) were in CP and 149 (54%) were males. The median age was 51 years (range, 15-83). 1L therapy consisted of dasatinib in 181 pts (66%), nilotinib in 84 (30%), and bosutinib in 11 (4%). Pts switched to 2L mostly due to intolerance (n=133; 48%), resistance (n=51; 18%), or both (n=65; 24%); 22 pts (8%) switched due to other reasons. Of 116 pts with resistance (including those with concomitant intolerance), 55 (47%) had lost their cytogenetic response while 61 (53%) had never achieved a cytogenetic response. Fifty pts with disease resistance had mutational analysis performed, of them, 9 (18%) had ABL1 mutations detected: T315I in 5 (one of them in combination with C464G), and V299L, Q252H, F317L, and E281fs in one pt each. The 10-year EFS, TFS, and OS rates with 1L were 57%, 100%, and 79%, respectively. 2L consisted of imatinib in 74 pts (27%), bosutinib in 64 (23%), nilotinib in 57 (21%), dasatinib in 43 (15%), ponatinib in 31 (11%), asciminib in 6 (2%), and investigational drug in 1 (1%). After a median follow-up of 6 years, the best cumulative response to 2L among 234 evaluable pts was MCyR in 203 (87%), CCyR in 178 (76%), MMR in 151 (65%), MR4 in 113 (48%), and MR4.5 in 106 (45%). Of 269 pts with available BCR::ABL1 transcript levels at the time of 2L initiation, 112 had transcripts >10% IS, of them 66 (60%) responded to <10% or deeper. 46 pts had transcripts between 1-10% at the start of 2L, of them 32 (70%) maintained (n=9; 20%) or deepened their responses (n=23; 50%). Of 39 pts with transcripts between 0.1-1%, 35 (90%) maintained (n=6; 16%) or deepened their responses (n=29; 74%). 51 pts had disease resistance (without intolerance) to 1L. Of 28 pts with transcripts >10%, 19 (68%) deepened their response with levels 1-10% in 5 (18%), 0.1-1% in 3 (11%), and <0.1% in 11 (39%). Of 23 with transcripts between 1-10%, 16 (70%) deepened their response with levels 0.1-1% in 3 (13%) and <0.1% in 13 (57%). Among the 51 pts with resistance only (BCR::ABL1 transcript >1%), 23 received a 2G-TKI, 22 a third-generation (3G)-TKI, 5 imatinib, and 1 an investigational drug as 2L. Of 22 pts who received 2G-TKI, 1 (4%) responded with a transcript level between 0.1-1% and 7 (30%) with transcripts <0.1%. These rates were significantly lower than those of pts who received 3G-TKI as 2L, with 4 (18%) and 17 (77%) achieving transcripts of 0.1-1% and <0.1%, respectively (P=0.001). A best cumulative response of CCyR, MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 was achieved in 35% and 95%, 30% and 77%, 13% and 64%, 13% and 55%, of pts treated with 2G-TKI versus 3G-TKI, respectively (P=0.001). 103 pts had treatment intolerance and BCR::ABL1 transcripts available at the time of initiation of 2L. Of them, 4 had a transcripts >10% (discontinued initially due to toxicity then subsequently lost response while off therapy), 8 between 1-10%, 26 between 0.1-1%, and 65 <0.1%. All 4 pts (100%) responded, 2 (50%) with transcripts of 0.1-1% and 2 (50%) <0.1%. Four of the 8 pts (50%) deepened their response with transcripts <0.1%. Of 26 pts, 20 (77%) deepened their response with transcripts <0.1%. Of 65 pts with transcripts <0.1%, 59 (91%) maintained their response. The estimated 10-year EFS, TFS, and OS rates on 2L therapy were 67%, 87%, and 71%, respectively. Conclusion Overall, 2L after 1L 2G-TKI resulted in cytogenetic remissions in approximately 80% of the pts and molecular remissions in more than 60% of the pts. Response rates were significantly higher in pts treated with a 3G-TKI compared to a 2G-TKI in the second line.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 5564-5564
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (18)

F

Fadi Haddad

H

Hagop Kantarjian

2Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

S

Sara Dellasala

1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States

G

Ghayas Issa

2Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

T

Tapan Kadia

2Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

J

Jayastu Senapati

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

R

Rita Khouri

1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States

N

Nicholas Short

1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States

C

Courtney DiNardo

1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States

N

Nitin Jain

H

Hussein Abbas

1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Leukemia, Houston, United States

K

Kelly Chien

1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States

A

Anwesha Ray

1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Leukemia, Houston, United States

N

Naveen Pemmaraju

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States

F

Farhad Ravandi

Department of Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA

G

Guillermo Garcia-Manero

K

Koji Sasaki

1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

E

Elias Jabbour

Department of Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas USA