Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Jan 20;36(3):231-237.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.7162. Epub 2017 Nov 1.

Bosutinib Versus Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Results From the Randomized BFORE Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Bosutinib Versus Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Results From the Randomized BFORE Trial

Jorge E Cortes et al. J Clin Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose Bosutinib is a potent dual SRC/ABL kinase inhibitor approved for adults with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant and /or intolerant to prior therapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of bosutinib versus imatinib for first-line treatment of chronic-phase CML. Methods In this ongoing, multinational, phase III study, 536 patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 400 mg of bosutinib once daily (n = 268) or imatinib (n = 268). Per protocol, efficacy was assessed in patients who were Philadelphia chromosome-positive with typical (e13a2/e14a2) transcripts (bosutinib, n = 246; imatinib, n = 241). Patients with Philadelphia chromosome-negative-/ BCR-ABL1-positive status and those with unknown Philadelphia chromosome status and/or atypical BCR-ABL1 transcript type were excluded from this population. Results The major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months (primary end point) was significantly higher with bosutinib versus imatinib (47.2% v 36.9%, respectively; P = .02), as was complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rate by 12 months (77.2% v 66.4%, respectively; P = .0075). Cumulative incidence was favorable with bosutinib (MMR: hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .0173; CCyR: hazard ratio, 1.38; P < .001), with earlier response times. Four patients (1.6%) receiving bosutinib and six patients (2.5%) receiving imatinib experienced disease progression to accelerated/blast phase. Among treated patients, 22.0% of patients receiving bosutinib and 26.8% of patients receiving imatinib discontinued treatment, most commonly for drug-related toxicity (12.7% and 8.7%, respectively). Grade ≥ 3 diarrhea (7.8% v 0.8%) and increased ALT (19.0% v 1.5%) and AST (9.7% v 1.9%) levels were more common with bosutinib. Cardiac and vascular toxicities were uncommon. Conclusion Patients who received bosutinib had significantly higher rates of MMR and CCyR and achieved responses faster than those who received imatinib. Consistent with the known safety profile, GI events and transaminase elevations were more common with bosutinib. Results indicate bosutinib may be an effective first-line treatment for chronic-phase CML.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02130557.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1.
Fig 1.
Molecular response rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months (modified intent-to-treat population). Major molecular response (MMR; defined as ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABL1 transcripts on the international scale with ≥ 3,000 ABL1 assessed), MR4 (defined as ≤ 0.01% BCR-ABL1 transcripts on the international scale with ≥ 9,800 ABL1 assessed), and MR4.5 (defined as ≤ 0.0032% BCR-ABL1 transcripts on the international scale with ≥ 30,990 ABL1 assessed) were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by Sokal risk group and geographic region. Two-sided P values from analyses other than the primary end point and 12-month secondary end points are for descriptive purposes only, without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Percentages are based on number of Philadelphia chromosome–positive patients with typical (e13a2 and/or e14a2) BCR-ABL1 transcript types (ie, modified intent-to-treat population) in each arm.

Comment in

References

    1. Cortes JE, Saglio G, Kantarjian HM, et al. : Final 5-year study results of DASISION: The dasatinib versus imatinib study in treatment-naïve chronic myeloid leukemia patients trial. J Clin Oncol 34:2333-2340, 2016 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hochhaus A, Saglio G, Hughes TP, et al. : Long-term benefits and risks of frontline nilotinib vs imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: 5-year update of the randomized ENESTnd trial. Leukemia 30:1044-1054, 2016 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hochhaus A, Larson RA, Guilhot F, et al. : Long-term outcomes of imatinib treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 376:917-927, 2017 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gambacorti-Passerini C, Antolini L, Mahon FX, et al. : Multicenter independent assessment of outcomes in chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with imatinib. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:553-561, 2011 - PubMed
    1. Sasaki K, Strom SS, O’Brien S, et al. : Relative survival in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia in the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor era: Analysis of patient data from six prospective clinical trials. Lancet Haematol 2:e186-e193, 2015 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data