Efficacy and Safety of Flumatinib in Treatment of Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.
10.19746/j.cnki.issn.1009-2137.2023.04.013
- Author:
Qian ZHANG
1
,
2
;
Ling QI
1
,
2
;
De-Xiang JI
1
,
2
;
Fei LI
1
,
3
Author Information
1. Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University
2. Institute of Hematology, Academy of Clinical Medicine of Jiangxi Province, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China.
3. Institute of Hematology, Academy of Clinical Medicine of Jiangxi Province, Nanchang 330006, Jiangxi Province, China. E-mail: yx021021@sina.com.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
chronic meyloid leukemia;
efficacy;
flumatinib;
safety
- MeSH:
Humans;
Imatinib Mesylate/therapeutic use*;
Dasatinib/therapeutic use*;
Protein Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use*;
Retrospective Studies;
Leukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL Positive/drug therapy*;
Benzamides/therapeutic use*;
Chronic Disease;
Treatment Outcome;
Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use*
- From:
Journal of Experimental Hematology
2023;31(4):1014-1018
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To analyze the efficacy and safety of flumatinib in the treatment of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).
METHODS:The clinical data of 56 CML patients treated with flumatinib from January 2020 to December 2021 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into three groups: 35 new diagnosed CML patients treated with flumatinib (group A), 10 patients with imatinib/dasatinib intolerance (group B) and 11 patients with imatinib/dasatinib resistance (group C) switched to flumatinib treatment, respectively. The molecular response and adverse effects of flumatinib treatment were evaluated.
RESULTS:In group A, the early molecular response (EMR) at 3 months was 40.0%, and the major molecular response (MMR) at 6 and 12 months was 43.7% and 46.2%, respectively. In group B, the EMR was 50.0% at 3 months, and the MMR was 70.0% and 66.2% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Among evaluable patients, 6 cases in group B achieved molecular response of 4.5 (MR4.5) at 12 months after switching to flumatinib treatment. In group C, 3 cases who switched from imatinib resistance to flumatinib achieved MR4.5 at 12 months, but 2 cases who switched from dasatinib resistance to flumatinib failed. Subgroup analysis showed significant differences in EUTOS long-term survival (ELTS) scores for patients in the medium-risk/high-risk group compared with those in the low-risk group for 3-month EMR (18.8% vs 57.9%), 6-month MMR (15.4% vs 63.2%) and 12-month MR4.5 (15.4% vs 69.2%) (P =0.036, P =0.012,P =0.015). The most common adverse effect in group A was thrombocytopenia, accounting for 54.5%, and 22.8% (8/35) patients discontinued the drug due to haematological adverse effects. Compared with patients who did not discontinue the drug or whose recovery time from discontinuation due to haematological toxicity was <1 month, patients whose recovery time from discontinuation was ≥1 month had a significantly worse 3-month EMR, 6-month MMR and 12-month MR4.5 (P =0.028, P =0.021, P =0.002).
CONCLUSIONS:Flumatinib has better molecular response and tolerance in patients with primary, imatinib/dasatinib-intolerant or resistant CML. Medium-risk/high-risk in ELTS score and time to recovery from discontinuation due to haematological toxicity ≥1 month are important factors influencing achievement of better molecular response in flumatinib treatment.
