First report of PhALLCON: A phase 3 study comparing ponatinib (pon) vs imatinib (im) in newly diagnosed patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL).

Abstract

398868 Background: The standard of care in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed (dx) Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in combination with chemotherapy (chemo) or steroids. Treated with 1st- or 2nd-generation TKIs, pts eventually progress due to emergence of resistance. Multiple studies have reported promising minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (neg) rates and survival outcomes with pon in combination with chemo or chemo-free regimens. PhALLCON (NCT03589326), the first randomized study comparing TKIs in pts with Ph+ALL, evaluates pon vs im in combination with reduced-intensity chemo. Methods: This phase 3 open-label trial randomized adult newly dx Ph+ALL pts 2:1 to receive pon (30 mg once daily [QD]) or im (600 mg QD) with reduced-intensity chemo through end of induction (EOI; Cycles 1–3), consolidation (Cycles 4–9), and post-consolidation (Cycles 10–20). After Cycle 20, pts received single-agent pon or im until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The composite primary endpoint was MRD-neg ( BCR:: ABL1 ≤0.01% ) complete remission (CR) for 4 weeks at EOI. Event-free survival (EFS: any cause death, failure to achieve CR by EOI, relapse from CR) was a key secondary endpoint. Results: 245 pts were randomized to pon (n=164) or im (n=81); median age was 54 y (37% ≥60 y). At data cutoff (Aug 2022), 78 pts (pon vs im: 42% vs 12%) were on study treatment; the top 3 reasons for discontinuation were hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (31% vs 37%), adverse events (12% vs 12%), and lack of efficacy (7% vs 26%). Median follow-up was 20 mo vs 18 mo (pon vs im). The primary endpoint was met (Table) by significantly higher MRD-neg CR rate for pon vs im (34.4% vs 16.7%; p=0.0021). Survival data were not mature; however, the median EFS was reached in im and not in pon, with a trend toward improvement (HR=0.652, 95% CI 0.385–1.104). Time to treatment failure reported an improvement as well (HR=0.455). The treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates (any grade [Gr] and Gr3/4/5) were comparable between treatment arms. Arterial occlusive events (AOEs) were infrequent and similar between the arms (Table). Conclusions: Pon was superior to im in combination with reduced-intensity chemo in pts with newly dx Ph+ALL, with a significantly higher MRD-neg CR rate at the EOI. Pon was associated with deeper and more durable responses, with a trend toward improved EFS and comparable safety vs im. Clinical trial information: NCT03589326 . [Table: see text]