Literature DB >> 12374454

Intravenous versus oral busulfan as part of a busulfan/cyclophosphamide preparative regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: decreased incidence of hepatic venoocclusive disease (HVOD), HVOD-related mortality, and overall 100-day mortality.

Ashwin Kashyap1, John Wingard, Pablo Cagnoni, Jones Roy, Stephan Tarantolo, Wendy Hu, Karl Blume, Joyce Niland, Joycelynne M Palmer, William Vaughan, Hugo Fernandez, Richard Champlin, Stephen Forman, Borje S Andersson.   

Abstract

Hepatic venoocclusive disease (HVOD) is a complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and is a well-recognized dose-limiting toxicity of oral busulfan (Bu)-based preparative regimens. The unpredictable absorption of oral Bu from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and hepatic first-pass effects have led to the development of an intravenous Bu preparation (i.v. Bu). The purpose of this retrospective comparison was to evaluate the incidence rate of HVOD and the 100-day mortality rate in patients treated with a busulfan/cyclophosphamide (BuCy2) regimen in which either oral Bu or i.v. Bu was administered. Data from 2 similar groups of patients treated between March 1995 and December 1997 were analyzed. Thirty patients were treated with oral Bu (1 mg/kg x 16 doses) at City of Hope and 61 patients were treated with i.v. Bu (0.8 mg/kg x 16 doses) in a multicenter trial involving 7 sites. Bu was followed by Cy (60 mg/kg x 2 days) and a histocompatible-sibling-donor HSCT. In the i.v. Bu treatment group, 48% of the patients were classified as heavily pretreated (> or = 3 prior chemotherapy regimens, prior radiation, or prior HSCT) with 13% having had a prior HSCT and 75% having active disease at the time of transplantation. According to the same classification criteria, 33% of the patients in the oral-Bu treatment group were considered heavily pretreated, with 23% having had a prior HSCT and 80% having active disease at the time of transplantation. The incidence rates of clinically diagnosed HVOD were 5/61 (8%) and 10/30 (33%) after i.v. and oral Bu, respectively. HVOD-related mortality occurred in 2 (3.3%) of 61 i.v. and 6 (20%) of 30 oral Bu patients. The (standardized) Jones criteria for HVOD were met by 4.9% of i.v. and 20% of oral Bu patients. Univariate logistic regression analysis identified oral versus i.v. Bu (P = .001) and a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (P = .04) as statistically significant factors in the development of HVOD, with prior extensive treatment identified as marginally significant (P = .25). No other demographic parameter was found to be significant. After adjustment for prior treatment, multivariate analyses showed that the use of oral versus i.v. Bu was the strongest predictor for development of HVOD (odds ratio, 7.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-27.2; P = .002). This study showed that the incidence rate of HVOD is significantly lower (P = .002) and the 100-day survival rate significantly higher (P = .002) in patients treated with i.v. Bu than in patients treated with oral Bu when Bu is used as part of a BuCy2 preparative regimen for allogeneic HSCT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12374454     DOI: 10.1053/bbmt.2002.v8.pm12374454

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant        ISSN: 1083-8791            Impact factor:   5.742


  43 in total

1.  Prospective cohort study comparing intravenous busulfan to total body irradiation in hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Authors:  Christopher Bredeson; Jennifer LeRademacher; Kazunobu Kato; John F Dipersio; Edward Agura; Steven M Devine; Frederick R Appelbaum; Marcie R Tomblyn; Ginna G Laport; Xiaochun Zhu; Philip L McCarthy; Vincent T Ho; Kenneth R Cooke; Elizabeth Armstrong; Angela Smith; J Douglas Rizzo; Jeanne M Burkart; Marcelo C Pasquini
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 22.113

2.  Comparison of algorithms for oral busulphan area under the concentration-time curve limited sampling estimate.

Authors:  Fredrik Sjöö; Ibrahim El-Serafi; Jon Enestig; Jonas Mattsson; Johan Liwing; Moustapha Hassan
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.859

3.  Intravenous busulfan plus melphalan is a highly effective, well-tolerated preparative regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with advanced lymphoid malignancies.

Authors:  Partow Kebriaei; Timothy Madden; Reza Kazerooni; Xuemei Wang; Peter F Thall; Celina Ledesma; Yago Nieto; Elizabeth J Shpall; Chitra Hosing; Muzaffar Qazilbash; Uday Popat; Issa Khouri; Richard E Champlin; Roy B Jones; Borje S Andersson
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Busulfan dosing algorithm and sampling strategy in stem cell transplantation patients.

Authors:  Francine A de Castro; Chiara Piana; Belinda P Simões; Vera L Lanchote; O Della Pasqua
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Therapeutic drug monitoring for either oral or intravenous busulfan when combined with pre- and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide.

Authors:  Lindsey R Lombardi; Christopher G Kanakry; Marianna Zahurak; Nadira Durakovic; Javier Bolaños-Meade; Yvette L Kasamon; Douglas E Gladstone; William Matsui; Ivan Borrello; Carol Ann Huff; Lode J Swinnen; Robert A Brodsky; Richard F Ambinder; Ephraim J Fuchs; Gary L Rosner; Richard J Jones; Leo Luznik
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2015-10-12

6.  Dose intensification of busulfan in the preparative regimen is associated with improved survival: a phase I/II controlled, randomized study.

Authors:  Simrit Parmar; Gabriela Rondon; Marcos de Lima; Peter Thall; Ronald Bassett; Paolo Anderlini; Partow Kebriaei; Issa Khouri; Prasanth Ganesan; Richard Champlin; Sergio Giralt
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Cyclophosphamide followed by intravenous targeted busulfan for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Andrew R Rezvani; Jeannine S McCune; Barry E Storer; Ami Batchelder; Aiko Kida; H Joachim Deeg; George B McDonald
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Toxicity and efficacy of busulfan and fludarabine myeloablative conditioning for HLA-identical sibling allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in AML and MDS.

Authors:  J De La Serna; J Sanz; A Bermúdez; M Cabrero; D Serrano; C Vallejo; V Gómez; J M Moraleda; S G Perez; M D Caballero; E Conde; J J Lahuerta; G Sanz
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 5.483

9.  Dose-reduced busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and autologous stem cell transplantation for human immunodeficiency virus-associated lymphoma: AIDS Malignancy Consortium study 020.

Authors:  Thomas R Spitzer; Richard F Ambinder; Jeannette Y Lee; Lawrence D Kaplan; William Wachsman; David J Straus; David M Aboulafia; David T Scadden
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Fludarabine-based myeloablative regimen as pretransplant conditioning therapy in adult acute leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome: comparison with oral or intravenous busulfan with cyclophosphamide.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Lee; Jimin Choi; Kyung A Kwon; Suee Lee; Sung Yong Oh; Hyuk-Chan Kwon; Hyo-Jin Kim; Jin Yeong Han; Sung-Hyun Kim
Journal:  Korean J Hematol       Date:  2010-06-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.