Abstract

Resistance or intolerance to imatinib in CML-CP occurs in ~20–30% of cases. The most frequent cause of resistance is clonal selection of cells harboring BCR-ABL kinase domain mutations. Nilotinib is a rationally designed, selective and potent BCR-ABL inhibitor with activity against most BCR-ABL mutants (not T315I) indicated for the treatment of Ph+ CML patients (pts) in chronic (CP) or accelerated phase (AP) resistant or intolerant to prior therapy including imatinib. This subanalysis of a phase II study of nilotinib in imatinib-resistant CML-CP pts assessed the occurrence of BCR-ABL mutations at baseline and during nilotinib treatment and their impact on treatment outcome after 12 months of nilotinib therapy. Of 321 CML-CP pts, 281 (88%) had baseline mutation data available, 114/281 (41%) had detectable BCR-ABL mutations prior to nilotinib therapy. The frequency of mutations at baseline was 55% among imatinib-resistant pts (n=192) and 10% among imatinib-intolerant pts (n=89). 23% of imatinib-resistant pts had mutations that were sensitive to nilotinib in vitro (IC50 ≤150 nM). These 12 different mutations (n=44) spread across the entire BCR-ABL kinase domain including P-loop, A-loop, and other regions. 14% of imatinib-resistant pts had 3 mutations that were less sensitive to nilotinib in vitro (IC50 >150 nM; Y253H, E255K/V, and F359C/V) and another 15% had a total of 16 mutations with unknown sensitivity to nilotinib. In imatinib-resistant pts lacking baseline mutations, after 12 months of therapy, major cytogenetic response (MCyR) was achieved in 60%, complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) in 40%, and major molecular response (MMR) in 28% of pts. In pts with detectable mutations, 51% achieved MCyR, 32% CCyR, and 20% MMR. Cytogenetic response rates in pts harboring mutations sensitive to nilotinib (MCyR 59%; CCyR 41%) or mutations with unknown sensitivity to nilotinib (MCyR 63%; CCyR 50%;) were comparable to those for pts without baseline mutations (MCyR 60%; CCyR 40%). Pts with mutations less sensitive to nilotinib in vitro had less favorable response after 12 months of therapy (23% MCyR). Pts with baseline mutations had a higher rate of disease progression during nilotinib treatment compared to pts without baseline mutations (46% vs. 26%). Different rates of progression were also observed with different mutations: 34% (15/44) of pts with mutations sensitive to nilotinib vs. 69% (18/26) with mutations less sensitive to nilotinib progressed. Mutations most frequently associated with progression were E255K/V (6/7) and F359C/V (9/11). Progression was defined as any of the following: investigator’s evaluation as progression, development of CML-AP or blast crisis, loss of CHR, loss of MCyR. During nilotinib therapy, 48/281 (17%) pts had newly detectable mutations, which were more frequent in pts with baseline mutations than in pts without baseline mutations (29% vs. 9%, respectively). The majority of pts without baseline mutations also did not have newly detectable mutation at the time of progression (n=14/18) suggesting that pts without baseline mutations are less likely to progress due to newly detectable mutations. In the 63 pts who progressed, 29% had no detectable mutation at progression, suggesting the involvement of alternative mechanisms of resistance in these pts. Overall, nilotinib treatment results in significant cytogenetic responses in pts with imatinib-resistant CML-CP with or without BCR-ABL mutations. The majority of imatinib-resistant pts with detectable BCR-ABL mutations at baseline also responded to nilotinib. Pts with BCR-ABL mutations sensitive and with unknown sensitivity to nilotinib in vitro achieved significant response rates with nilotinib therapy, comparable to those for pts without baseline mutations.

Disclosures: Hochhaus:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Innovive: Research Funding; Wyeth: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Kim:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Wyeth: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Martinelli:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Hughes:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Branford:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haque:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Shou:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Saglio:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Radich:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Author notes

Corresponding author