Does ASC4FIRST data justify the use of first-line asciminib for all newly diagnosed CML over other TKIs, considering that post-progression survival data is not yet mature?
Does the open-label study design raise any concerns regarding accurate reporting of AEs, perhaps overestimating differences in tolerability between cohorts?
Answer from: Medical Oncologist at Community Practice
Ideally, every patient gets the newest and greatest, but the elephant in the room is asciminib’s $145,000 per year cost compared to imatinib’s $600.
Comments
Medical Oncologist at Texas Oncology Dallas I completely agree. Why pay for a drug that is >...
Medical Oncologist at McLeod Health Seacoast Hospital Agree completely. In a cost-effectiveness analysis...
Although an excellent addition to the treatment armamentarium given its excellent tolerability, I do not think the data justifies the use of asciminib for all newly diagnosed CP CML patients. Although MMR and deeper responses providing the opportunity for TFR are a key goal for many patients, overal...
Comments
Medical Oncologist at Missouri Cancer Associates I wonder if the answer would change if the cost we...
Answer from: Medical Oncologist at Community Practice
The difference in MMR was indeed statistically significant, so I would consider it for all my patients. We do not expect survival benefits since we already achieved near-normal life expectancy with imatinib. The goals of developing new and better therapies are to improve on other goals, such as havi...
With longer follow-up, the advantages in response with asciminib compared to imatinib, and compared to ‘all other TKI choices (including imatinib and second generation)’ were both significant. While not powered (difficult to impossible given the numbers of patients needed) to show a stat...
I completely agree. Why pay for a drug that is >...
Agree completely. In a cost-effectiveness analysis...