PURPOSE: Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome have often been excluded from myeloablative-conditioning regimens containing busulfan because of non-disease-related morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that busulfan clearance (BuCL) in older patients (>60 years) would be reduced compared to that in younger patients, potentially explaining observed differences in busulfan tolerability. METHODS: AML patients in three CALGB hematopoietic cell transplantation studies were treated with a conditioning regimen using IV busulfan, dosed at 0.8 mg/kg. Plasma busulfan concentrations were determined by LC-MS and analyzed by non-compartmental methods. BuCL was normalized to actual (ABW), ideal (IBW), or corrected (CBW) body weight (kg). Differences in BuCL between age groups were examined using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-five patients were accrued; 174 provided useable pharmacokinetic data. Twenty-nine patients ≥ 60 years old (median 66; range 60-74) had a significantly higher BuCL versus those <60 years old (median 50; range 18-60): BuCL 236 versus 168 mL/min, p = 0.0002; BuCL/ABW 3.0 versus 2.1 mL/min/kg, p = 0.0001; BuCL/IBW 3.8 versus 2.6 mL/min/kg, p = 0.0035; BuCL/CBW 3.4 versus 2.6 mL/min/kg, p = 0.0005. Inter-patient variability in clearance (CV %) was up to 48 % in both age groups. Phenytoin administration, a potential confounder, did not affect BuCL, regardless of weight normalization (p > 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, BuCL was significantly higher in older patients compared to younger patients in these studies and does not explain the previously reported increase in busulfan toxicity observed in older patients.
PURPOSE: Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome have often been excluded from myeloablative-conditioning regimens containing busulfan because of non-disease-related morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that busulfan clearance (BuCL) in older patients (>60 years) would be reduced compared to that in younger patients, potentially explaining observed differences in busulfan tolerability. METHODS:AMLpatients in three CALGB hematopoietic cell transplantation studies were treated with a conditioning regimen using IV busulfan, dosed at 0.8 mg/kg. Plasma busulfan concentrations were determined by LC-MS and analyzed by non-compartmental methods. BuCL was normalized to actual (ABW), ideal (IBW), or corrected (CBW) body weight (kg). Differences in BuCL between age groups were examined using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-five patients were accrued; 174 provided useable pharmacokinetic data. Twenty-nine patients ≥ 60 years old (median 66; range 60-74) had a significantly higher BuCL versus those <60 years old (median 50; range 18-60): BuCL 236 versus 168 mL/min, p = 0.0002; BuCL/ABW 3.0 versus 2.1 mL/min/kg, p = 0.0001; BuCL/IBW 3.8 versus 2.6 mL/min/kg, p = 0.0035; BuCL/CBW 3.4 versus 2.6 mL/min/kg, p = 0.0005. Inter-patient variability in clearance (CV %) was up to 48 % in both age groups. Phenytoin administration, a potential confounder, did not affect BuCL, regardless of weight normalization (p > 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, BuCL was significantly higher in older patients compared to younger patients in these studies and does not explain the previously reported increase in busulfantoxicity observed in older patients.
Authors: Borje S Andersson; Peter F Thall; Timothy Madden; Daniel Couriel; Xuemei Wang; Hai T Tran; Paolo Anderlini; Marcos de Lima; James Gajewski; Richard E Champlin Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2002 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Borje S Andersson; Ashwin Kashyap; Victor Gian; John R Wingard; Hugo Fernandez; Pablo J Cagnoni; Roy B Jones; Stefano Tarantolo; Wendy W Hu; Karl G Blume; Stephen J Forman; Richard E Champlin Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2002 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Holly L Howe; Lynn A G Ries; Michael J Thun; Harry M Rosenberg; Rosemary Yancik; Phyllis A Wingo; Ahmedin Jemal; Ellen G Feigal Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J S McCune; T Gooley; J P Gibbs; J E Sanders; E W Petersdorf; F R Appelbaum; C Anasetti; L Risler; D Sultan; J T Slattery Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.483
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
Authors: Jeannine S McCune; Tao Wang; Khalid Bo-Subait; Mahmoud Aljurf; Amer Beitinjaneh; Joseph Bubalo; Jean-Yves Cahn; Jan Cerny; Saurabh Chhabra; Aaron Cumpston; L Lee Dupuis; Hillard M Lazarus; David I Marks; Richard T Maziarz; Maxim Norkin; Tim Prestidge; Shin Mineishi; Maxwell M Krem; Marcelo Pasquini; Paul J Martin Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Matthew P Mulé; Gabriel N Mannis; Brent L Wood; Jerald P Radich; Jimmy Hwang; Nestor R Ramos; Charalambos Andreadis; Lloyd Damon; Aaron C Logan; Thomas G Martin; Christopher S Hourigan Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Ahmed El-Serafi; Rui He; Wenyi Zheng; Fadwa Benkossou; Sandra Oerther; Ying Zhao; Karin Mellgren; Britt Gustafsson; Carsten Heilmann; Jukka Kanerva; Kourosh Lotfi; Jacek Toporski; Mikael Sundin; Martin Höglund; Jonas Mattsson; Ibrahim El-Serafi; Moustapha Hassan Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.483