Phase 3 ASCEMBL Study Demonstrates Superiority of Asciminib in CML-CP

Talha Badar, MBBS, MD, discussed the results of the phase 3 ASCEMBL trial, demonstrating the superiority of asciminib versus bosutinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase.

As part of CancerNetwork’s Face-Off video series, Talha Badar, MBBS, MD, assistant professor of oncology, Mayo Clinic, discussed results from the phase 3 ASCEMBL study (NCT03106779) of asciminib (Scemblix) versus bosutinib (Bosulif) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) after ≥2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

Badar: So basically, the phase 3 ASCEMBL trial was done to evaluate the efficacy of asciminib, which is a novel CML therapy, which is different from conventional tyrosine kinase inhibitors. It's an stamp inhibitor, and it is used to have less side effects compared to conventional TKI-based therapy. So, it was compared to second generation TKI, which is bosutinib. And the primary end point of the study is the proportion of patients achieving measurable remission at 6 weeks of therapy.

So [in] that phase 3 randomized study, patients were included with 2 or more prior lines of TKI therapy, [had] CML in chronic phase. The study met the primary end point of achieving major measurable remission better than bosutinib. And that led to approval of asciminib In patients with more 2 or more prior lines of TKI or patients with D315I mutation in which most of the TKIs are resistant, apart from ponatinib [Iclusig].

So the ASCEMBL study which we discussed in our CancerNetwork Face-Off [program] was a dynamics of response and response factors in patients with CML with 2 or more prior lines of therapy. It's an exploratory analysis.

There is a concern that asciminib works differently, the duration response achieved with this therapy may not be sustained for long period of time. So basically, in this analysis, they tried to see how the patient responded at different intervals from 6 weeks to 24 weeks, and to 96 week, which is 2 years.

So there is some positive finding, which suggests the superiority of asciminib achieving long-term measure marker response in these patients. The patient will further divide into 2 cohorts in this study, patients who had a B-cell of more than 10% at the start of the study versus patients who have B-cell able transcript, less than 10% on Tasha scale at the start of study, and the response was evaluated at 24-weeks and 96-week intervals.

So patients who had more than 10% fusion transcript, around 23% of patients achieved dsustain MMR at the 2-year interval. The patients who were the less than 10% fusion transcript by IS had a better response intuitively, and 60% of those patients maintained MMR.

The other aspect of the treatment and treatment paradigm evaluated in this study was to see, was there any impact of prior TKI use in terms of patients getting asciminib and bosutinib. So the best outcome in patients who had a first-generation TKI like imatinib [Gleevec], and had a best outcome with asciminib, with the major marker response around 55.6%, compared to bosutinib, only 14.3%. And the less favorable but still better than bosutinib was a group of patient who had a prior pacritinib [Vonjo] in which 20% of patient had maintained MMR at 2 years mark, compared to 11% in patients who got bosutinib.

And the therapy was well tolerated. The usual side effects we see in this trial in the bosutinib group more patient had a GI intolerance. As we know before in SML-POM there wasn't much GI side effects apart from times myelosuppression, some cytopenia, neutropenia, that could be comparable to the bosutinib arm.

So in conclusion, I would say that the responses achieved with asciminib in patients who have CML with prior 2 or more lines of therapy were far better than bosutinib. And the responses were maintained at the t2-year mark. Responses were better in patients who had a B-cell within 10% at the time of the study compared to those who have B-cell more than 10%. So it maintains the superiority over bosutinib in the phase 3 study.

Transcription edited for clarity.

Related Videos
Daniel G. Stover, MD, suggests that stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes may serve as a biomarker of immune activation and can potentially help optimize therapy with microtubule-targeting agents for patients with metastatic breast cancer.
PRGN-3005 autologous UltraCAR-T cells appear well-tolerated and decreases tumor burden in a population of patients with advanced platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.
Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, discusses how, compared with antibody-drug conjugates, chemotherapy produces low response rates and disease control in the treatment of those with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.
Hope Rugo, MD, speaks to the importance of identifying patients with aromatase inhibitor–resistant, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who are undergoing treatment with capivasertib/fulvestrant who may be at a high risk of developing diabetes or hyperglycemia.
Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, describes the benefit of sacituzumab govitecan for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer seen in the final overall survival analysis of the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 study.
An expert from Vanderbilt University Medical Center says that patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma may be able to live a normal life following response to salvage treatment with bispecific monoclonal antibodies.
Andrew J. Armstrong, MD, MSc, spoke about the recent approval of olaparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone in patients with BRCA-mutant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
For clinicians practicing in the community, constant communication and education from those in institutions may help to produce the best quality of care for patients with multiple myeloma.
Ashley E. Rosko, MD, specializes in multidisciplinary care for elderly patients with multiple myeloma, and how to make treatment most accessible to them.
At first relapse, novel therapies are offered to patients with multiple myeloma at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-The James.