Jump to content


Photo

A new treatment combination for patients with relapsed Philadelphia chromosome positive leukemia (CML)


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Red Cross Kirk

Red Cross Kirk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 24 January 2018 - 12:05 AM

https://communityvie...ve-leukemia-cml

 

Below is a quote from the above article on the new forum.  Am I reading this wrong?  It looks like they're saying the rate of CHR is lower than the rate of CMR.  Is that even possible?  I thought that in order to have CMR you had to have already reached CHR and then CCyR.  Or, did someone get the numbers backwards?

 

"The complete hematologic (blood based) response (no sign of active disease) rate to treatment was 50% in these patients. The complete cytogenic (chromosome based) response (decrease in abnormal chromosomes) rate was 71%. The complete molecular (molecule based) response (no sign of abnormal chromosomes) rate was 75%."


Kirk

 

9/25/2012  p210 transcript 118.7% IS @ Dx, begin Gleevec 400mg/day
12/2012  3.59% & bone marrow biopsy - no residual myeloproliferative features but detected 1/20 metaphases containing the Philadelphia chromosome
2013  0.914%, 0.434%, 0.412%
10/2013  0.360% & bone marrow biopsy - normal male karyotype with no evidence of a clonal cytogenetic abnormaltiy
2014  0.174%, 0.088%, 0.064%

2015  0.049%, decrease to Gleevec 200mg/day, 0.035%, 0.061%, 0.028%

2016  0.041%, 0.039%, 0.025%

2017  0.029%, 0.039%, switched to generic imatinib 200mg/day, 0.070%, 0.088%

2018  0.233%


#2 Trey

Trey

    Advanced Member

  • PS Beta Group
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, Texas

Posted 24 January 2018 - 04:32 PM

If CHR is defined in weird ways (such as all blood counts returned to normal) CHR rates can be very low, even lower than MMR and CMR/PCRU.  Some of mine have never returned to "normal" including MCV and MCH.  But they don't matter.  CHR should generally only be based on WBC and PLT.  Even RBC can stay low for many years.


Edited by Trey, 24 January 2018 - 04:33 PM.


#3 Red Cross Kirk

Red Cross Kirk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 24 January 2018 - 06:55 PM

Thanks Trey,

 

I think maybe the wonky numbers are the result of mixing different patient subsets together for this study.  Here's a snippet with more detail:

 

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively studied 12 adults with relapsed/refractory Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n = 9) and chronic myeloid leukemia in blast crisis (n = 3), treated with the combination blinatumomab and a TKI (ponatinib, n = 8; dasatinib, n = 3; bosutinib, n = 1). All patients have previously failed at least 1 line of chemotherapy, including allogeneic stem cell transplantation, and 1 class of TKIs. Patients were treated for either overt hematologic relapse (n = 6) or persistent minimal residual disease following other regimens (n = 6).

Results

The complete hematologic, cytogenetic, and molecular response rates were 50% (3/6), 71% (5/7), and 75% (9/12), respectively. Two cases of grade 2 cytokine release syndrome were observed, all of which resolved with steroids and tocilizumab. No cardiovascular adverse events were encountered. With a median follow-up of 8 months, the median survival was not reached; the 6-month and 1-year overall survival rates were 73%.


Kirk

 

9/25/2012  p210 transcript 118.7% IS @ Dx, begin Gleevec 400mg/day
12/2012  3.59% & bone marrow biopsy - no residual myeloproliferative features but detected 1/20 metaphases containing the Philadelphia chromosome
2013  0.914%, 0.434%, 0.412%
10/2013  0.360% & bone marrow biopsy - normal male karyotype with no evidence of a clonal cytogenetic abnormaltiy
2014  0.174%, 0.088%, 0.064%

2015  0.049%, decrease to Gleevec 200mg/day, 0.035%, 0.061%, 0.028%

2016  0.041%, 0.039%, 0.025%

2017  0.029%, 0.039%, switched to generic imatinib 200mg/day, 0.070%, 0.088%

2018  0.233%


#4 Trey

Trey

    Advanced Member

  • PS Beta Group
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, Texas

Posted 24 January 2018 - 07:56 PM

Those numbers of patients (12) are too small to make any sense of using percentages anyway.


Edited by Trey, 24 January 2018 - 07:57 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users