Active clinical trials for "Leukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL Positive"

Treatment optimization for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) with treatment naïve disease (1st line) and patients with resistance or intolerance against alternative Abl-Kinase Inhibitors (≥2nd line) (DasaHIT Trial (Dasatinib Holiday for Improved Tolerability))

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a hematopoietic neoplasm characterized by the reciprocal translocation t(9;22). The resulting oncoprotein, bcr-abl is an essential trigger for growth and survival of leukemic cells. In the past decade, the bcr-abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) imatinib (IM or Glivec©) has been the standard of care for patients with CML, inducing durable responses. However, requiring continuing IM indefinitely and the ability of IM to eradicate the CML clone was uncertain. In a small proportion of patients, IM can induce complete molecular response (CMR) defined by the disappearance of the bcr-abl transcript in conventional quantitative RT-PCR. The question whether or not these patients are cured and can discontinue drug therapy has been assessed by Mahon and coll, in the STIM study. He demonstrates that IM can be safely discontinued in patient with a CMR of at least 2 year duration and all patients who relapsed after IM discontinuation mainly did it in the first 6 months and responded to reintroduction of imatinib. Nilotinib is a rationally designed second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor with improved target specificity over imatinib. Its efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib as well as patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP led to the registration in second and first line treatment of CML-CP patients. Nilotinib produces even faster and deeper responses with more occurrence of CMR than does Imatinib. Consequently, one can assume that a more potent drug such nilotinib could induce deeper and sustained CMR allowing longer period off treatment than IM. The objective of this pilot trial is to assess if Nilotinib can rescue STIM patients in molecular relapse after IM discontinuation and to provide an estimation about duration of CMR after nilotinib discontinuation in 2nd line therapy among patients experiencing 2 years of stable CMR with nilotinib.

The purpose of this study is to determine if low-dose imatinib and nilotinib combination, will improve treatment results in CML patients with failure, suboptimal response or intolerance to imatinib therapy. The hypothesis is that with low-dose imatinib and nilotinib combination, major molecular response will be achieved in patients not previously obtained with imatinib monotherapy.

This study will evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of long-term use of peginterferon alfa-2a in participants with CML who have previously participated in peginterferon alfa-2a study ML16544 (NCT number not available), NO16006 (NCT number not available) or ML17228 (NCT number not available) and treating physician has decided to continue treatment with peginterferon alfa-2a within the frame of another clinical study.

The objective of the present study is to evaluate a new drug called bosutinib as it is believed that this agent may be able to predict an excellent prognosis in patients that did not obtain any benefit with other drugs before. Still, this needs to be proved and we hope this study is able to do so.

This study proposes to evaluate the number of chronic, Grade 1 or 2, non-hematologic Adverse Events (AEs) that reduce in grade or resolve at 3 months after switching therapy from imatinib to dasatinib.

This is a Phase II, open-label, two strata, multicenter, prospective study of plerixafor-mobilized HLA-identical sibling allografts in recipients with hematological malignancies. This study will establish the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous plerixafor for this purpose.

In this study it was the rationale to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the combined administration of nilotinib and increasing dose of ruxolitinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and patients with Philadelphia positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

This phase II trial is studying the safety and potential efficacy of infusing non-human leukocyte antigen matched ex vivo expanded cord blood progenitors with one or two unmanipulated umbilical cord blood units for transplantation following conditioning with fludarabine phosphate, cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation, and immunosuppression with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil for patients with hematologic malignancies. Chemotherapy, such as fludarabine phosphate and cyclophosphamide, and total-body irradiation given before an umbilical cord blood transplant stops the growth of leukemia cells and works to prevent the patient's immune system from rejecting the donor's stem cells. The healthy stem cells from the donor's umbilical cord blood help the patient's bone marrow make new red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. It may take several weeks for these new blood cells to grow. During that period of time, patients are at increased risk for bleeding and infection. Faster recovery of white blood cells may decrease the number and severity of infections. Studies have shown that counts recover more quickly when more cord blood cells are given with the transplant. We have developed a way of growing or "expanding" the number of cord blood cells in the lab so that there are more cells available for transplant. We are doing this study to find out whether or not giving these expanded cells along with one or two unexpanded cord blood units is safe and if use of expanded cells can decrease the time it takes for white blood cells to recover after transplant. We will study the time it takes for blood counts to recover, which of the two or three cord blood units makes up the patient's new blood system, and how quickly immune system cells return.

The purpose of this study is to assess the bioequivalence of subcutaneous Vidaza® and subcutaneous Luitpold Azacitidine pharmacokinetics and to assess the comparative safety of subcutaneous Vidaza® versus subcutaneous Luitpold Azacitidine.