Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,678

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Nilotinib versus Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

Open access
Saglio, Giuseppe, Kim, Dong-Wook, Issaragrisil, Surapol, le Coutre, Philipp, Etienne, Gabriel, Lobo, Clarisse, Pasquini, Ricardo, Clark, Richard E., Hochhaus, Andreas, Hughes, Timothy P., Gallagher, Neil, Hoenekopp, Albert, Dong, Mei, Haque, Ariful, Larson, Richard A., Kantarjian, Hagop M.·2010·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nilotinib has been shown to be a more potent inhibitor of BCR-ABL than imatinib. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nilotinib, as compared with imatinib, in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in the chronic phase. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter study, we assigned 846 patients with chronic-phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nilotinib (at a dose of either 300 mg or 400 mg twice daily) or imatinib (at a dose of 400 mg once daily). The primary end point was the rate of major molecular response at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the rates of major molecular response for nilotinib (44% for the 300-mg dose and 43% for the 400-mg dose) were nearly twice that for imatinib (22%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The rates of complete cytogenetic response by 12 months were significantly higher for nilotinib (80% for the 300-mg dose and 78% for the 400-mg dose) than for imatinib (65%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Patients receiving either the 300-mg dose or the 400-mg dose of nilotinib twice daily had a significant improvement in the time to progression to the accelerated phase or blast crisis, as compared with those receiving imatinib (P=0.01 and P=0.004, respectively). No patient with progression to the accelerated phase or blast crisis had a major molecular response. Gastrointestinal and fluid-retention events were more frequent among patients receiving imatinib, whereas dermatologic events and headache were more frequent in those receiving nilotinib. Discontinuations due to aminotransferase and bilirubin elevations were low in all three study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nilotinib at a dose of either 300 mg or 400 mg twice daily was superior to imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00471497.)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa0912614

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,678

Metadata

Authors
Saglio, G., Kim, D.-W., Issaragrisil, S., le Coutre, P., Etienne, G., Lobo, C., Pasquini, R., Clark, R. E., Hochhaus, A., Hughes, T. P., Gallagher, N., Hoenekopp, A., Dong, M., Haque, A., Larson, R. A., & Kantarjian, H. M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2010-06-17
Volume
362
Issue
24
Pages
2251-2259
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2143939343
Cited by
1,678
References
0
FWCI
105.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nilotinib versus Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0912614
The paper
Saglio, G., Kim, D.-W., Issaragrisil, S., le Coutre, P., Etienne, G., Lobo, C., Pasquini, R., Clark, R. E., Hochhaus, A., Hughes, T. P., Gallagher, N., Hoenekopp, A., Dong, M., Haque, A., Larson, R. A., & Kantarjian, H. M. (2010). Nilotinib versus Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0912614

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.