The role of bosutinib as rescue treatment of Philadelphia chromosome‐positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients after failing three previous tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is currently unknown. We report here the largest series (to our knowledge) of patients treated with bosutinib in fourth‐line, after retrospectively reviewing 30 patients in chronic phase, and pretreated with imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib. With a median follow up of 11.1 months, the probability to either maintain or improve their CCyR response was 56.6% (17/30) and 11 patients (36.7%) achieved or maintained their baseline MMR. In patients not having baseline CCyR, the probabilities of obtaining CCyR, MMR, and MR4.5 were 13, 11, and 14%, respectively. The probabilities of obtaining MMR and deep molecular response MR4.5 in patients with baseline CCyR were 40.0% (6/15) and 20.0% (3/15). At 20 months, progression‐free survival was 73%. Grade 3–4 hematological toxicities were more frequent in resistant than intolerant patients (45.4 vs. 0.0%). Nonhematological toxicities were also more frequent in resistant patients, being diarrhea the most conspicuous one. Bosutinib seems to be an appropriate treatment option for patients resistant or intolerant to three prior TKI's.Am. J. Hematol. 90:429–433, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In the latest recommendations for the management of chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia suboptimal responses have been reclassified as "warning responses." In contrast to previous recommendations current guidance advises close monitoring without changing therapy. We have identified 198 patients treated with first-line imatinib, with a warning response after 12 months of treatment (patients with a complete cytogenetic response but no major molecular response [MMR]). One hundred and forty-six patients remained on imatinib, while 52 patients changed treatment to a second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (2GTKI). Changing therapy did not correlate with an increase in overall survival or progression-free survival. Nevertheless, a significant improvement was observed in the probability of a MMR: 24% vs. 42% by 12 months and 43% vs. 64% by 24 months (P 5 0.002); as well as the probability of achieving a deep molecular responses (MR 4.5 ): 1% vs. 17% and 7% vs. 23% by 12 and 24 months, respectively (P 5 <0.001) .The treatment change to 2GTKI remained safe; however, we have observed a 19% of treatment discontinuation due to side effects. We have observed an improvement of molecular responses after changing treatment to 2GTKI in patients with late suboptimal response treated with imatinib first line. However, these benefits were not correlated with an improvement of progression free survival or overall survival.Am. J. Hematol. 89:E206-E211,

Patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have an adverse outcome after relapse. Bendamustine has demonstrated a good efficacy and toxicity profile in previously reported trials. In this study, we present a retrospective analysis of the Spanish experience in relapsed/refractory MCL treated with bendamustine in combination or alone with the objective of knowing the efficacy and toxicity profile of this treatment in our current clinical practice. Fifty eight patients were registered: 67 % male with median age of 71 years, and 2 is the median number of previous lines. The most frequent bendamustine regimen was bendamustine plus rituximab (83 %). The median number of cycles was 5 (range 1-8). The overall response rate was 84 % with 53 % of complete response/unconfirmed complete response (CR/uCR). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16 months (95 % confidence interval (CI) 13.3-18.8), and for patients who achieved CR/uCR, it was 33 months (95 % CI 11.1-54.2). Median overall survival (OS) was 30 months (95 % CI 25.6-34.9). For PFS, only blastoid histology and not achieving CR after bendamustine had a significant negative impact on the univariate and multivariate analyses (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, for OS, only an elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) had negative impact on both, univariate and multivariate analyses (p < 0.05). Only one case of treatment-related mortality in a 79-year-old patient with very bad performance status was reported. In 280 cycles, 12 (4 %) hospitalizations for febrile neutropenia were reported. In our population, bendamustine has been a good salvage treatment with a favorable toxicity profile in a non selected and heavily pretreated population of patients with MCL.

No abstract

Second-generation TKIs have demonstrated efficacy and an acceptable tolerability in patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML); however, new data from so called “off target” side effects have been published. For example, serious concerns have been raised about cardiovascular (CV) events with ponatinib, and, in lesser degree with nilotinib (NI), impeding or difficulting the treatment in patients with previous CV risk factors. Besides, patients with previous history of pleural effusion or pulmonary hypertension should avoid dasatinib (DA) if possible. Bosutinib could be a good candidate for situations which preclude the use of other TKI’s. We have previously presented efficacy data of 29 patients treated with bosutinib in forth line. The aim of this study is to report safety data of heavily CML patients treated with bosutinib in 4th line. We have studied 30 pts previously treated with imatinib (IM), dasatinib and nilotinib and 5 pts previously treated with IM-DA or NI since 2012 under the Spanish Compassionate Use Program. Patient’s baseline characteristics and previous treatments are shown in table 1. We have classified patients in 2 groups regarding to investigator-driven cause of discontinuation: intolerant (INT) or resistant (RES). At the data cutoff on June 16, 2014, the median follow up was 11.47 months (range, 2.03-45.97 months). Median duration of BOS treatment across all cohorts was 9.23 months (range, 0.63-23.40 months). We observed no significant differences in terms of Index prognostic factors (Sokal, Hasford or Eutos), sex, median duration of TKIs treatment or comorbidities. However, patients with resistance where significantly older observed: 56 years vs. 67 years (p<0.05). Toxicity spectrum pre-BOS: Main reason for treatment discontinuation for each TKI was: treatment failure in the case of IM (14/35) and intolerance for both DA 16/34 and NI 13/31. Hematological (HEM) toxicities grade 3-4 with all TKIs were more common in RES pts, being dasatinib the one that showed the highest rate of grade 3-4 HEM toxicities. Non-HEM toxicities to all TKIs were significantly more frequent in INT than in RES pts (p<0.05). Most common grade 3-4 non-HEM toxicities were rash for IM (3/35), pleural effusion for DA (7/34) and vascular events for NI (3/31 Peripheral arterial disease (PAOD), 3/31 Ischemic heart disease (IHD)). Toxicity spectrum with BOS treatment: treatment interruptions were more frequent in INT than in RES pts 52% vs 25%, as well as dose reductions 78% vs 66% respectively. Grade 3-4 HEM toxicities were more common in RES than INT pts (41.6% vs 4.3% respectively). Non-HEM toxicities were also more frequent in RES pts than INT: diarrhea (50% vs 43%), rash (16% vs 8%), ALT or AST increase (25% vs 13%) abdominal pain (16% vs 4%), grade 3-4 non HEM toxicities were more frequent in RES than INT pts (41% vs 17%) (Diarrhea 16.7% vs 4.3%, AST/ALT increase: 16.7% vs 0%). None (0/12) vs 4/23 (17%) pts discontinued treatment due to toxicity in the RES vs. INT group respectively. Cross intolerance was extremely rare, of the 7 pts who had rash with IM, only 1 suffered rash with BOS. None pts had pleural effusion with BOS out of 15 who previously suffered with DA neither vascular events out of the 10 pts that previously suffered with NI. EFS by 20 months was 75% vs 50% for INT and RES patients. We have shown how in previously heavily pretreated CML patients, most of them in 4th line bosutinib has an excellent safety profile with no patients interrupting treatment due to side effects in previously intolerant patients. Importantly, rates of cross intolerance (namely CV, pleural and skin ) have also been very low. We conclude that Bosutinib is an excellent alternative also in patients who are left without a suitable treatment option. Table IM+NI-I +DA-R IMA+NI-R +DA-R IM+NI-I +DA-I IM+NI-R +DA-I IM+NI/DA TOTAL Pts, N(%) 2 (5.7) 7 (20) 15 (43) 6 (17) 5 (14) 35 (100) Age of diagnosis, med yr 61.0 46.7 54.7 53.8 58.7 54.2 Age of BOS initiation, med yr 74.7 61.5 64.6 64.8 65.5 63.8 Sokal index at diagnosis, N (High/intermidiate/low) 1/0/1 1/2/4 0/5/7 1/2/2 0/2/2 3/11/16 Time from first TKI to BOS, med yr 11.7 10.0 9.9 7.4 10.7 10.0 Duration of IM treatment, med, mo 63.3 33.1 26.6 21.4 78.2 27.2 Duration of DA treatment, med, mo 48.7 16.0 41.9 19.2 18.7 23.6 Duration of NI treatment, med ,mo 29.1 14.2 9.0 21.0 24.2 11.6 I:iIntolerance, R: resistant, med: median, yr: year, mo: months Disclosures García-Gutiérrez: Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy. Steegmann:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Consultancy.