Flumatinib Versus Imatinib As a Frontline Therapy for Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase: A Propensity Score Matching Study from Real-World Data

Background: Flumatinib mesylate, as a novel oral BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved as a frontline therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) in China since 2019. Mechanistically, with its structure of trifluoromethyl and pyridine flumatinib blocked BCR-ABL1 kinase autophosphorylation with much more potent activity than did imatinib and even showed higher efficacy than nilotinib against wild-type BCR-ABL1 kinase. Currently, there is still lacking the real-world effectiveness and safety of flumatinib in patients with CML.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed efficacy and safety of CML-CP patients (≥16 years) used flumatinib (600mg daily) or imatinib (400mg daily) as first-line treatment from 2020 to 2023, presenting a real-world comparison study. A propensity score (PS) matching was performed to adjust for Sokal risk score to compare the treatment efficacy, survival outcomes and safety of flumatinib and imatinib in a clinically well matched cohort.

Results: PS matching resulted in 20 patients from each cohort being matched for Sokal risk scores. The median follow-up of the flumatinib-treated and imatinib-treated cohorts was 441 days and 487 days, respectively. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, there is no differences between flumatinib and imatinib groups in 3-month early molecular response rate (85% vs. 80%, p = 0.677), 6-month major molecular response rate (MMR) (50% vs. 40%, p = 0.525) and 12-month MMR (55% vs. 50%, p = 0.752). In term of deep molecular response, more patients receiving flumatinib achieved molecular remission 4.5 (MR4.5) and molecular remission 4 (MR4.0) at 6 months (35% vs.0%, p = 0.004; and 45% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.003, respectively) and appeared to have higher 12-month MR4.5 and 12-month MR4.0 (45% vs.10%, p = 0.013; and 45% vs. 20%, p = 0.091, respectively; Table). During the follow-up period, treatment discontinuation occurred in 6 and 9 patients in flumatinib-treated and imatinib-treated cohorts respectively, including 2 and 3 patients due to drug resistance and 3 and 4 patients due to toxicity. The 2-year probability of event-free survival was 70% among the patients who received flumatinib and 47% among those who received imatinib ( p = 0.85), and the corresponding 2-year failure-free survival probabilities were 85% and 76%, respectively ( p = 0.77). Adverse events of edema, rash were more frequent in imatinib arm (any grade; 0% vs. 25%, p = 0.017; and 0% vs. 25%, p = 0.035, respectively), whereas alanine transaminase elevation appeared to be more frequent in flumatinib arm (any grade, 15% vs. 0%, p = 0.072). Of note, one patient receiving flumatinib had grade 3 QT prolongation and ventricular premature beat and was discontinued.

Conclusions: The real-world data demonstrated that as a first-line treatment setting, flumatinib can bring patients with chronic phase CML higher rates of responses, and faster and deeper responses, indicating that flumatinib could be an alternative effective first-line treatment for CML-CP. The adverse events of flumatinib, such as cardiovascular events, abnormal liver function, and diarrhea, need to be given continuous concern in future studies.