BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of the association of busulfan with cyclophosphamide (BuCy2) versus busulfan and fludarabine (BuFlu) as a conditioning regimen in allogeneic hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (allo-HPCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 65 consecutive patients who received an allo-HPCT from Human Leucocyte Antigen-matched sibling donors were analyzed. The conditioning was BuCy2 in 48 patients and BuFlu in 17 patients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 2 cohorts in hematological engraftment, incidence of extrahematological toxicities, and acute graft versus host disease (GVHD). The incidence of chronic GVHD was 34% in the BuCy2 group versus 57% in the BuFlu group (P = .03). Transplant-related mortality was 17% (8 patients) in the BuCy2 group versus 0 in the BuFlu arm. Disease-related mortality was similar in the whole study population; in high-risk AML patients it was 11% in the BuCy2 group and 19% in the BuFlu group (P = .015). The probability of disease-free and event-free survival at 2 years was, respectively, 70% and 60% in the BuCy2 group and 59% and 58% in the BuFlu group (P = .06 and P = not significant [ns]). The probability of overall survival at 2 years was 71% in the BuCy2 group and 63% in the BuFlu group (P = ns), and in the high-risk group it was 83% and 67% in the BuCy2 and BuFlu group, respectively (P = ns). CONCLUSION: BuFlu is well tolerated and is less toxic than BuCy2 and our results did not suggest that in high-risk AML, BuCy2 should be the favorite regimen in terms of efficacy.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of the association of busulfan with cyclophosphamide (BuCy2) versus busulfan and fludarabine (BuFlu) as a conditioning regimen in allogeneic hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (allo-HPCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 65 consecutive patients who received an allo-HPCT from Human Leucocyte Antigen-matched sibling donors were analyzed. The conditioning was BuCy2 in 48 patients and BuFlu in 17 patients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 2 cohorts in hematological engraftment, incidence of extrahematological toxicities, and acute graft versus host disease (GVHD). The incidence of chronic GVHD was 34% in the BuCy2 group versus 57% in the BuFlu group (P = .03). Transplant-related mortality was 17% (8 patients) in the BuCy2 group versus 0 in the BuFlu arm. Disease-related mortality was similar in the whole study population; in high-risk AMLpatients it was 11% in the BuCy2 group and 19% in the BuFlu group (P = .015). The probability of disease-free and event-free survival at 2 years was, respectively, 70% and 60% in the BuCy2 group and 59% and 58% in the BuFlu group (P = .06 and P = not significant [ns]). The probability of overall survival at 2 years was 71% in the BuCy2 group and 63% in the BuFlu group (P = ns), and in the high-risk group it was 83% and 67% in the BuCy2 and BuFlu group, respectively (P = ns). CONCLUSION:BuFlu is well tolerated and is less toxic than BuCy2 and our results did not suggest that in high-risk AML, BuCy2 should be the favorite regimen in terms of efficacy.
Authors: Andrew C Harris; Jaap J Boelens; Kwang Woo Ahn; Mingwei Fei; Allistair Abraham; Andrew Artz; Christopher Dvorak; Haydar Frangoul; Cesar Freytes; Robert Peter Gale; Sanghee Hong; Hillard M Lazarus; Alison Loren; Shin Mineishi; Taiga Nishihori; Tracey O'Brien; Kirsten Williams; Marcelo C Pasquini; John E Levine Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2018-06-12
Authors: Jurgen B Langenhorst; Thomas P C Dorlo; Charlotte van Kesteren; Erik M van Maarseveen; Stefan Nierkens; Moniek A de Witte; Jaap Jan Boelens; Alwin D R Huitema Journal: CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol Date: 2020-04-21