The Outcomes of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients With Molecular Warning Responses During Imatinib Treatment According to the European LeukemiaNet 2013 Recommendations.
Clicks: 376
ID: 51728
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
62.8
/100
376 views
249 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #3 of 5 articles by views in clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2013 recommendations, chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients with warning response (WR) were suggested to be monitored closely continuing with the same tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Differently, the guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network considers switching to another TKI as an option.We retrospectively evaluated 73 CML patients receiving first-line imatinib, who were followed and managed in accordance with ELN recommendations. We compared patients with molecular WR with patients with optimal response (OR) and failure regarding short- and long-term outcomes.The cumulative major molecular response (MMR) rates in patients with OR were significantly higher at any time point than those achieved by the WR group. Patients with WR at 3 months had significantly inferior failure-free survival (FFS) than optimal responders, but overall survival (OS) was similar. For 6 and 12 months, the WR and OR groups had similar FFS and OS. Twenty of 23 patients with WR at 12 months achieved MMR during imatinib treatment.It takes longer to get to ELN time points with imatinib than second-generation TKIs (2GTKIs). Treatment might fail in a small proportion of the patients with WR during imatinib treatment, but close and careful monitoring and timely switching to 2GTKIs might translate into favorable outcomes. Avoiding early switch to 2GTKIs would prevent patients from experiencing potential toxicities. There is still a need for prospective comparative studies (ie, continuing imatinib treatment vs. switching to 2GTKIs) in patients with WR, to justify the validity of this response category and to explore the benefit of treatment change in these patients.
| Reference Key |
soysal2019theclinical
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Soysal, Teoman;Eskazan, Ahmet Emre;Serin, Istemi;Sadri, Sevil;Keskin, Dilek;Ozgur Yurttas, Nurgul;Berk, Selin;Erdogan Ozunal, Isil;Salihoglu, Ayse;Ar, Muhlis Cem;Ongoren, Seniz;Baslar, Zafer;Ozbek, Ugur;Aydin, Yildiz; |
| Journal | clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
S2152-2650(18)31616-1
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.