Retrospective study finds Dasatinib effective in treating CML in Peru, with a 10-year overall survival of 61.2%.
Background: The second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor Dasatinib (DAS) used as second-line treatment is a valid option in patients with CML after resistance or intolerance to prior Imatinib (IMA). Peru is a developing country where Dasatinib is mostly used as second-line therapy. Methods: We performed a real-life observational retrospective study collecting clinical data of CML patients that received second-line therapy with DAS from 5 hemato-oncology centers in Lima. The patients were treated according to the guidelines and resources of each center and the data was obtained from their respective database in a real-life setting. Results: A total of 258 patients with CML older than 14 years, treated with DAS between 2010 and 2024 were screened from 5 centers. The median age was 43 years. High risk score was observed in 61.8% and 38.2% pts at diagnosis according with Sokal and ELTS score respectively. 82.7% of pts received DAS for IMA failure and 17.3% for IMA intolerance. The initial DAS dose was 100 mg (73.6%), 50 mg (12%), 140 mg (10 %) and 70 mg (4.4%) with a mean DAS dose of 96.7 mg. 62.2 % of pts achieved MMR at any time point. Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity was observed in 30.2% of pts while pleural effusion was reported in 20.5% (1.9 % G3-4). Due to toxicity, 40.3% required dose modification. At mean follow-up of 45.1 months [0.2-200], 57.1% of patients continue with DAS. We observed an estimated median overall survival of 14.1 years for the entire cohort, with a 10-y OS of 61.2% Conclusion: In this Peruvian real-life cohort we found that DAS as second-line treatment in CML patients is a safe and effective therapy with high RMM rate, low rates of G3-4 pleural effusion and a discontinuation rate similar to other studies, with 57.1% of pts remaining on treatment at the last follow-up. This data will help take actions to improve the outcomes of Peruvian CML patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Figari et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: