OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographic characteristics, treatment duration, and survival of patients with GIST in LMICs treated with imatinib and sunitinib through The Max Foundation programs.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective database cohort analysis included patients in 2 access programs administered by The Max Foundation: the Glivec International Patient Assistance Program (GIPAP), from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, and the Max Access Solutions (MAS) program, January 1, 2017, to October 12, 2020. Sixty-six countries in which The Max Foundation facilitates access to imatinib and sunitinib were included. Participants consisted of patients with approved indications for imatinib, including adjuvant therapy in high-risk GIST by pathologic evaluation of resected tumor or biopsy-proven unresectable or metastatic GIST. All patients were reported to have tumors positive for CD117(c-kit) by treating physicians. A total of 9866 patients received treatment for metastatic and/or unresectable disease; 2100 received adjuvant imatinib; 49 received imatinib from another source and were only included in the sunitinib analysis; and 53 received both imatinib and sunitinib through The Max Foundation programs. Data were analyzed from October 13, 2020, to January 30, 2024.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Demographic and clinical information was reported by treating physicians. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS). An imputation-based informed censoring model estimated events for patients lost to follow-up after treatment with adjuvant imatinib. Patients who were lost to follow-up with metastatic or unresectable disease were presumed deceased.
RESULTS: A total of 12 015 unique patients were included in the analysis (6890 male [57.6%]; median age, 54 [range, 0-100] years). Of these, 2100 patients were treated with imatinib in the adjuvant setting (median age, 54 [range 8-88] years) and 9866 were treated with imatinib for metastatic or unresectable disease (median age, 55 [range, 0-100] years). Male patients comprised 5867 of 9866 patients (59.5%) with metastatic or unresectable disease and 1023 of 2100 patients (48.7%) receiving adjuvant therapy. The median OS with imatinib for unresectable or metastatic disease was 5.8 (95% CI, 5.6-6.1) years, and the median TTD was 4.2 (95% CI, 4.1-4.4) years. The median OS with sunitinib for patients with metastatic or unresectable GIST was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.5-2.5) years; the median TTD was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.1) years. The 10-year OS rate in the adjuvant setting was 73.8% (95% CI, 67.2%-81.1%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of patients with GIST who were predominantly from LMICs and received orally administered therapy through the GIPAP or MAS programs, outcomes were similar to those observed in high-resource countries. These findings underscore the feasibility and relevance of administering oral anticancer therapy to a molecularly defined population in LMICs, addressing a critical gap in cancer care.
SOURCES OF DATA: Recent published literature.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Corticosteroids and immunomodulators that antagonize the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor have been shown to play a critical role in modulating inflammation and improving clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. Inhaled budesonide reduces the time to recovery in older patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed in the community.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The clinical benefit of remdesivir remains controversial with conflicting evidence from different trials. Remdesivir led to a reduction in time to clinical recovery in the ACTT-1 trial. However, the World Health Organization SOLIDARITY and DISCOVERY trial did not find a significant benefit on 28-day mortality and clinical recovery.
GROWING POINTS: Other treatments currently being investigated include antidiabetic drug empagliflozin, antimalarial drug artesunate, tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib, immunomodulatory drug infliximab, antiviral drug favipiravir, antiparasitic drug ivermectin and antidepressant drug fluvoxamine.
AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: The timing of therapeutic interventions based on postulated mechanisms of action and the selection of clinically meaningful primary end points remain important considerations in the design and implementation of COVID-19 therapeutic trials.
METHODS: Patients with CML were recruited from outpatient haematological clinics at the national centre of intervention and referral for haematological conditions and a public teaching hospital. The health-related quality of life or utility scores were derived using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Costing data were obtained from the Ministry of Health Malaysia Casemix MalaysianDRG. Imatinib and nilotinib drug costs were obtained from the administration of the participating hospitals and pharmaceutical company.
RESULTS: Of the 221 respondents in this study, 68.8% were imatinib users. The total care provider cost for CML treatment was USD23,014.40 for imatinib and USD43,442.69 for nilotinib. The governmental financial assistance programme reduced the total care provider cost to USD13,693.51 for imatinib and USD19,193.45 for nilotinib. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 17.87 and 20.91 per imatinib and nilotinib user, respectively. Nilotinib had a higher drug cost than imatinib, yet its users had better life expectancy, utility score, and QALYs. Imatinib yielded the lowest cost per QALYs at USD766.29.
CONCLUSION: Overall, imatinib is more cost-effective than nilotinib for treating CML in Malaysia from the care provider's perspective. The findings demonstrate the importance of cancer drug funding assistance for ensuring that the appropriate treatments are accessible and affordable and that patients with cancer use and benefit from such patient assistance programmes. To establish effective health expenditure, drug distribution inequality should be addressed.
CASE: A 60-year-old woman presented with abdominal discomfort and hyperleukocytosis. She was diagnosed as CML in the chronic phase with positive BCR-ABL1 transcripts. Due to the failure to obtain an optimal response with imatinib treatment, it was switched to nilotinib. She responded well to nilotinib initially and achieved complete haematological and cytogenetic responses, with undetectable BCR-ABL1 transcripts. However, in 4 years she developed molecular relapse. Mutation analysis which was done 70 months after commencement of nilotinib showed the presence of BCRABL1 kinase domain mutation with nucleotide substitution at position 1187 from Histidine(H) to Proline(P) (H396P). Currently, she is on nilotinib 400mg twice daily. Her latest molecular analysis showed the presence of residual BCR-ABL1 transcripts at 0.22%.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of BCR-ABL1 mutation analysis in CML patients with persistent BCR-ABL1 positivity in spite of treatment. Early detection and identification of the type of BCRABL1 mutation are important to guide appropriate treatment options as different mutation will have different sensitivity to TKI.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study, which included 93 CML patients and 98 controls. The polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method was used to genotype the FAS and FASL polymorphisms. Data nanlysis was done using SPSS Version 22. The associations of the genotypes with susceptibility risk and IM response in CML patients were assessed by means of logistic regression analysis and deriving odds ratio with 95% CI.
RESULTS: We observed a significant association between FASL-844T>C polymorphism and CML susceptibility risk and IM response. Variant C allele and FASL-844 CC variant genotype carriers had significantly higher risk for CML susceptibility (OR 1.756, CI 1.163-2.652, p=0.007 and OR 2.261, CI 1.013-5.047, p=0.047 respectively). Conversely, the heterozygous genotype FASL-844 TC conferred lower risk for CML susceptibility (OR 0.379, CI 0.176-0.816, p=0.013). The heterozygous and homozygous variant genotypes and variant C alleles were found to confer a lower risk for the development of IM resistance with OR 0.129 (95% CI: 0.034-0.489 p=0.003), OR 0.257 (95% CI: 0.081-0.818, p=0.021), and OR 0.486 (95% CI: 0.262-0.899, p=0.021) respectively. We also found that FAS-670 A>G polymorphism was not associated with CML susceptibility risk or IM response.
CONCLUSION: The genetic polymorphism FASL-844 T>C may contribute to the CML susceptibility risk and also IM treatment response in CML patients. Accodringly, it may be useful as a biomarker for predicting CML susceptibility risk and IM resistance.
AIM: To investigate the correlation of HOXA4 and HOXA5 promoter DNA hypermethylation with imatinib resistance among CML patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Samples from 175 Philadelphia positive CML patients (83 good response and 92 BCR-ABL non-mutated imatinib resistant patients) were subjected to Methylation Specific High Resolution Melt Analysis for methylation levels quantification of the HOXA4 and HOXA5 promoter regions. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was done to elucidate the optimal methylation cut-off point followed by multiple logistic regression analysis. Log-Rank analysis was done to measure the overall survival difference between CML groups. The optimal methylation cut-off point was found to be at 62.5% for both HOXA4 and HOXA5. Chronic myeloid leukemia patients with ≥63% HOXA4 and HOXA5 methylation level were shown to have 3.78 and 3.95 times the odds, respectively, to acquire resistance to imatinib. However, overall survival of CML patients that have ≤62% and ≥ 63% methylation levels of HOXA4 and HOXA5 genes were found to be not significant (P-value = 0.126 for HOXA4; P-value = 0.217 for HOXA5).
CONCLUSION: Hypermethylation of the HOXA4 and HOXA5 promoter is correlated with imatinib resistance and with further investigation, it could be a potential epigenetic biomarker in supplement to the BCR-ABL gene mutation in predicting imatinib treatment response among CML patients but could not be considered as a prognostic marker.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of adult CML patients (citizen) in a single but representative centre in southern Sarawak.
RESULTS: Total 79 patients (Malay 39%, Chinese 30.4%, Iban 17.7%, Bidayuh 12.7%) were identified from the databases. Median age at diagnosis was younger, 40, compared to developed countries due to population structure. M:F ratio was higher, 2.6:1 compared to other countries 1.3-1.7:1. Majority presented at chronic phase (89.5%), low/intermediate risk score (80%) and started imatinib (96%) as first line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which 40% of them switched to other TKI due to intolerance (17%) and failure (including disease progression)/not achieving major molecular response (83%). Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assessment after three months of TKI treatment had higher positive predictive value to predict Imatinib failure, 75%, than qPCR assessment after six months of TKI treatment, 58%. Presenting phase, symptoms, signs and laboratory data were like most countries. Estimated prevalence and incidence of CML in southern Sarawak was 69.2/1,000,000 population at the Year 2016 (similar to most developing countries) and 8.0/1,000,000 population per year at the Year 2011-2016 (similar to most countries), respectively. The incidence increased with age and was lowest among Iban, 12.8 and highest among Chinese, 19.5, which was 4x higher than Chinese in China. The prevalence of different BCR-ABL1 transcript type was like other Asia countries CONCLUSION: Significant epidemiological differences on M:F ratio and ethnic groups compared to other countries warrant further study.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the association of SOCS1 gene hypermethylation in mediating IM Resistance.
METHOD: The SOCS1 promoter methylation level of 92 BCR-ABL non mutated IM resistant CML patients, 83 IM good response CML patients and 5 normal samples from healthy individuals were measured using Methylation Specific-High Resolution Melt (MS-HRM) analysis.
RESULTS: Both primers used to amplify promoter region from -333 to -223 and from -332 to -188 showed less than 10% methylation in all CML and normal samples. Consequently, there was no significant difference in SOCS1 promoter methylation level between IM resistant and IM good response patients.
CONCLUSION: SOCS1 promoter methylation level is not suitable to be used as one of the biomarkers for predicting the possibility of acquiring resistance among CML patients treated with IM.