Gareth Gerrard

PURPOSE: We studied BCR-ABL1 transcript levels in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) at 3, 6, and 12 months after starting imatinib to identify molecular milestones that would predict for overall survival (OS) and other outcomes more reliably than serial marrow cytogenetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 282 patients with CML-CP who received imatinib 400 mg/d as first-line therapy followed by dasatinib or nilotinib if treatment with imatinib failed. We used a receiver operating characteristic curve to identify the cutoffs in transcript levels at 3, 6, and 12 months that would best predict patient outcome. We validated our findings in an independent cohort of 95 patients treated elsewhere. RESULTS: Patients with transcript levels of more than 9.84% (n = 68) at 3 months had significantly lower 8-year probabilities of OS (56.9% v 93.3%; P < .001), progression-free survival, cumulative incidence of complete cytogenetic response, and complete molecular response than those with higher transcript levels. Similarly, transcript levels of more than 1.67% (n = 87) at 6 months and more than 0.53% (n = 93) at 12 months identified high-risk patients. However, transcript levels at 3 months were the most strongly predictive for the various outcomes. When we compared OS for the groups defined molecularly at 6 and 12 months with the usual cytogenetic milestones, categorization by transcript numbers was the only independent predictor for OS (relative risk, 0.207; P < .001 and relative risk, 0.158; P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: A single measurement of BCR-ABL1 transcripts performed at 3 months is the best way to identify patients destined to fare poorly, thereby allowing early clinical intervention.

The Philadelphia chromosome positive arm of the UKALLXII/ECOG2993 study for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) enrolled 266 patients between 1993 and 2003 (pre-imatinib cohort). In 2003 imatinib was introduced as a single-agent course following induction (N = 86, late imatinib). In 2005 imatinib was added to the second phase of induction (N = 89, early imatinib). The complete remission (CR) rate was 92% in the imatinib cohort vs 82% in the preimatinib cohort (P = .004). At 4 years, the overall survival (OS) of all patients in the imatinib cohort was 38% vs 22% in the preimatinib cohort (P = .003). The magnitude of the difference between the preimatinib and imatinib cohorts in event-free survival (EFS), OS, and relapse-free survival (RFS) seen in univariate analysis was even greater in the multivariate analysis. In the preimatinib cohort, 31% of those starting treatment achieved hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) compared with 46% in the imatinib cohort. A Cox multivariate analysis taking alloHSCT into account showed a modest additional benefit to imatinib (hazard ratio for EFS = 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.93, P = .02), but no significant benefit for OS and RFS. Adding imatinib to standard therapy improves CR rate and long-term OS for adults with ALL. A proportion of the OS benefit derives from the fact that imatinib facilitates alloHSCT. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00002514.

We studied the relation between adherence to imatinib measured with microelectronic monitoring systems and the probabilities of losing a complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and of imatinib failure in 87 CCyR chronic myeloid leukemia patients receiving long-term therapy. We included in our analysis the most relevant prognostic factors described to date. On multivariate analysis, the adherence rate and having failed to achieve a major molecular response were the only independent predictors for loss of CCyR and discontinuation of imatinib therapy. The 23 patients with an adherence rate less than or equal to 85% had a higher probability of losing their CCyR at 2 years (26.8% vs 1.5%, P = .0002) and a lower probability of remaining on imatinib (64.5% vs 90.6%, P = .006) than the 64 patients with an adherence rate more than 85%. In summary, we have shown that poor adherence is the principal factor contributing to the loss of cytogenetic responses and treatment failure in patients on long-term therapy.

The predictive value of molecular minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring using polymerase chain reaction amplification of clone-specific immunoglobulin or T-cell Receptor rearrangements was analysed in 161 patients with non T-lineage Philadelphia-negative acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) participating in the UK arm of the international ALL trial UKALL XII/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2993. MRD positivity (> or =10(-4)) in patients treated with chemotherapy alone was associated with significantly shorter relapse-free survival (RFS) at several time-points during the first year of therapy. MRD status best discriminated outcome after phase 2 induction, when the relative risk of relapse was 8.95 (2.85-28.09)-fold higher in MRD-positive (> or =10(-4)) patients and the 5-year RFS 15% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0-40%] compared to 71% (56-85%) in MRD-negative (<10(-4)) patients (P = 0.0002) When MRD was detected prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT), a significantly higher rate of treatment failure was observed [5-year RFS 25% (CI 0-55%) vs. 77% (95% CI 54-100%) in MRD-negative/<10(-4), P = 0.01] whereas in recipients of allogeneic-SCT in first complete remission, MRD positivity pre-transplant did not adversely affect outcome. These data provide a rationale for introducing MRD-based risk stratification in future studies for the delineation of those at significant risk of treatment failure in whom intensification of therapy should be evaluated.