Spotlight on the real-world treatment of CML pts in Germany: a retrospective survey in private oncology practices

TL;DR

This study examines how chronic myeloid leukemia patients are treated in German private oncology practices, finding good responses and treatment changes mainly due to side effects.

Contribution

The study provides real-world insights into CML treatment practices in private oncology settings in Germany.

Findings

Most patients achieved good molecular responses with routine qPCR monitoring.

Treatment changes were primarily due to adverse events rather than suboptimal responses.

A significant portion of patients switched to second or third-line treatments over time.

Abstract

Clinical trials in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) are usually carried out in specialized centers whereas primary care for patients (pts) with CML is mainly provided by local oncology practices. The aim of this study was to assess treatment practices in pts with CML in the setting of private oncology practices in Germany. We collected data of 819 pts with a confirmed diagnosis (dx) of CML in 2013 or later from 43 practices. At dx, 84.2% (n=690) and 9.4% (n=77) of pts were in chronic or accelerated phase, 0.7% (n=6) had a blast crisis. Molecular monitoring was provided by EUTOS certified laboratories in 87.7% of pts. Typical BCR::ABL1 transcripts were detected in 86.6% (n=709). Molecular response was assessed after 2.8, 6.0, 9.4 and 12.9 m (mean) after start of treatment. Of the pts with available data, 11.1% did not achieve early molecular response and at 18 m, 83.7% had at least a major molecular response. 288 (35.2%) of pts switched to 2nd line (2L) treatment after a mean of 21.0 months. Reasons for 2L treatment were side effects in 43.4% and suboptimal response or failure in 31.4% of pts. 106 pts went on to third line (3L) treatment. 36.8 % of pts switched to and 92.8 % of pts still on 3L treatment achieved BCR::ABL1IS ≤1% at 12 m. In conclusion, in Germany pts with CML are routinely monitored by qPCR and good responses are achieved in the majority. Treatment changes are mainly due to adverse events rather than suboptimal responses.

Figures