Cancer diagnosis & prognosis · 2026
BCR::ABL1 Mutational Profiling in US Patients With Chronic-phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia on Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Haddad Fadi G, Jabbour Elias J, Gutkin Stephen W, Pathak Ashutosh K, Zhai Yifan, Kantarjian Hagop M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Widespread use of BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has transformed the clinical landscape of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). However, BCR::ABL1 mutation-driven treatment resistance challenges optimal care and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to ascertain real-world practices concerning such mutational profiling in US hematology and oncology practices, which were mainly community-based.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is the first chart review of BCR::ABL1 kinase domain mutational profiling in the US. In this study of the Cardinal Health Oncology Provider Extended Network (OPEN), 13 hematologists and/or oncologists selected charts of adults with chronic-phase CML for approximately equal numbers of patients who underwent such testing (Cohort 1; n=26) or did not (Cohort 2; n=25).
RESULTS: Across most time points, failure and warning signs by molecular testing were not significantly more frequent in patients who did or did not undergo BCR::ABL1 mutational profiling. Conversely, similar frequencies of optimal milestones were observed in patients with or without testing. Patients who underwent BCR::ABL1 mutational profiling were more likely to have splenomegaly (p=0.0069) versus those who did not.
CONCLUSION: There were few significant differences in failure and warning signs by molecular testing in patients who did or did not undergo mutational profiling. Patients who underwent BCR::ABL1 mutational profiling were significantly more likely to have splenomegaly, which is not included in consensus guidelines as a reason to conduct such testing. Taken together, these findings raise potential concerns about consensus guideline adherence as a means to optimize CML management for TKI resistance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is the first chart review of BCR::ABL1 kinase domain mutational profiling in the US. In this study of the Cardinal Health Oncology Provider Extended Network (OPEN), 13 hematologists and/or oncologists selected charts of adults with chronic-phase CML for approximately equal numbers of patients who underwent such testing (Cohort 1; n=26) or did not (Cohort 2; n=25).
RESULTS: Across most time points, failure and warning signs by molecular testing were not significantly more frequent in patients who did or did not undergo BCR::ABL1 mutational profiling. Conversely, similar frequencies of optimal milestones were observed in patients with or without testing. Patients who underwent BCR::ABL1 mutational profiling were more likely to have splenomegaly (p=0.0069) versus those who did not.
CONCLUSION: There were few significant differences in failure and warning signs by molecular testing in patients who did or did not undergo mutational profiling. Patients who underwent BCR::ABL1 mutational profiling were significantly more likely to have splenomegaly, which is not included in consensus guidelines as a reason to conduct such testing. Taken together, these findings raise potential concerns about consensus guideline adherence as a means to optimize CML management for TKI resistance.