As discussed throughout this article, there has been anevolution in the way CML patients are managed todaycompared to strategies used a decade ago.

Oncology nurses continue to play a key role in the managementand care of patients with Ph+ CML. As the skilledoncology nurse is aware, despite the similarities anddifferences apparent in agents within the same class, monitoring,documenting, and evaluating their effect in patientsare essential to understanding the subtleties of each treatmentregimen and to ensure the best possible patientoutcome. Oncology nurses closely monitor resistancepatterns and drug selection with an eye to therapeuticmilestones; they are in an optimal position to recognizethe severity of adverse events and suggest changes intherapy. More importantly, oncology nurses address patientconcerns, using a step-care approach, and help set patientexpectations; this is greatly due to the impact of researchand the role of the oncology nurse in helping determinethe potential long-term benefits or disadvantages of second-generationTKIs. More options now exist with the 3available treatments that can help improve patient outcomes.The impact oncology nurses have in therapy selectioncannot be underestimated.

Continue Reading

Only continued patient follow-up and vigilant monitoringof treatment-related response and toxicity will helpensure the most effective patient care in CML as well ashelp provide data on durability of responses, emergence oftreatment resistance, and long-term safety of current agentsand those yet to come.

1. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Chronic myelogenousleukemia. Version I.2011. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Website. September 27, 2010.
2. Druker B, Talpaz M, Resta DJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitorof the BCR-ABL kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med.2001;44(14):1031-1037.
3. Sawyers CL. Even better kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukemia.N Engl J Med. 2010;362(24):2314-2315.
4. O’Brien SG, Guilhot F, Larson RA, et al. Imatinib compared with interferonand low-dose cytarabine for newly diagnosed chronic phase chronicmyeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(11):994-1004.
5. Saglio G, Kim DW, Issaragrisil S, et al. Nilotinib versus imatinib for newlydiagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(24):2251-2259.
6. Kantarjian H, Shah NP, Hochhaus A, et al. Dasatinib versus imatinib innewly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. New Engl JMed. 2010;362(24):2260-2270.
7. Druker BJ, Guilhot F, O’Brien SG, et al. Five-year follow-up of patientsreceiving imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med.2006;355(23):2408-2417.
8. TASIGNA® [package insert]. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis PharmaceuticalsCorporation; June 2010.
9. SPRYCEL® (dasatinib) receives FDA priority review for the treatment ofadult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) inchronic phase [press release]. Princeton, NJ and Tokyo. Bristol-MyersSquibb. July 9, 2010.
10. Jabbour E, Cortes JE, Giles FJ, et al. Current and emerging treatmentoptions in chronic myeloid leukemia. Cancer. 2007;109(11):2171-2181.
11. American Cancer Society. Detailed guide: Leukemia–Chronic Myeloid(Myelogenous). What are the risk factors for chronic myeloid leukemia? September 10, 2010.
12. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin.2009;59(4):225-249.
13. Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M, et al (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review,1975-2006, National Cancer Institute Web site. Bethesda, MD. Accessed September 10, 2010.
14. Chronic myelogenous leukemia. The Leukemia & Lymphoma SocietyWeb site. Accessed September 10, 2010.
15. Sawyers CL. Chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(17):1330-1340.
16. Kantarjian HM, O’Brien S, Smith TL, et al. Treatment of Philadelphiachromosome-positive early chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemiawith daily doses of interferon alpha and low-dose cytarabine. J Clin Oncol.1999;17(1):284-292.
17. GLEEVEC® [package insert]. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis PharmaceuticalsCorporation; February 2010.
18. Deininger M, O’Brien SG, Guilhot F, et al. International randomized studyof interferon and STI571 (IRIS) 8-year follow-up: sustained survival andlow risk for progression or events in patients with newly diagnosedchronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) treated with imatinib.Blood. (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 2009;114:Abstract 1126.
19. Hochhaus A, La Roseé P. Imatinib therapy in chronic myelogenous leukemia:strategies to avoid and overcome resistance. Leukemia.2004;18(8):1321–1331.
20. Lahaye T, Riehm B, Berger U, et al. Response and resistance in 300 patientswith BCR-ABL-positive leukemias treated with imatinib in a single center:a 4.5-year follow-up. Cancer. 2005;103(8):1659-1669.
21. Bauer S, Romvari E. Treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia followingimatinib resistance: a nursing guide to second-line treatment options.Clin J Oncology Nursing. 2009;13(5):523-534.
22. Branford S, Rudzki Z, Walsh S, et al. Detection of BCR-ABL mutations inpatients with CML treated with imatinib is virtually always accompaniedby clinical resistance, and mutations in the ATP phosphate-binding loop(P-loop) are associated with a poor prognosis. Blood. 2003;102(1):276-283.
23. Agrawal M, Garg RJ, Kantarjian H, Cortes J. Chronic myeloid leukemia inthe tyrosine kinase inhibitor era: what is the “best” therapy? Curr OncolRep. 2010;12(15):302–313.
24. SPRYCEL® [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb; June2009.
25. Breccia M, Alimena G. The significance of early, major and stable molecularresponses in chronic myeloid leukemia in the imatinib era [publishedonline ahead of print August 2, 2010]. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.07.003.
26. Iacobucci I, Saglio G, Rosti G, et al. Achieving a major molecular responseat the time of a complete cytogenetic response (CCgR) predicts a betterduration of CCgR in imatinib-treated chronic myeloid leukemia patients.Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(10):3037-3042.