Literature DB >> 25784222

Allogeneic transplantation with myeloablative FluBu4 conditioning improves survival compared to reduced intensity FluBu2 conditioning for acute myeloid leukemia in remission.

John M Magenau1, Thomas Braun, Pavan Reddy, Brian Parkin, Attaphol Pawarode, Shin Mineishi, Sung Choi, John Levine, Yumeng Li, Gregory Yanik, Carrie Kitko, Tracey Churay, David Frame, Mary Mansour Riwes, Andrew Harris, Dale Bixby, Daniel R Couriel, Steven C Goldstein.   

Abstract

The optimal intensity of conditioning for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains undefined. Traditionally, myeloablative conditioning regimens improve disease control, but at the risk of greater nonrelapse mortality. Because fludarabine with myeloablative doses of intravenous busulfan using pharmacokinetic monitoring has excellent tolerability, we reasoned that this regimen would limit relapse without substantially elevating toxicity when compared to reduced intensity conditioning. We retrospectively analyzed 148 consecutive AML patients in remission receiving T cell replete HCT conditioned with fludarabine and intravenous busulfan at doses defined as reduced (6.4 mg/kg; FluBu2, n = 63) or myeloablative (12.8 mg/kg; FluBu4, n = 85). Early and late nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was similar among FluBu4 and FluBu2 recipients, respectively (day + 100: 4 vs 0 %; 5 years: 19 vs 22 %; p = 0.54). NRM did not differ between FluBu4 and FluBu2 in patients >50 years of age (24 vs 22 %, p = 0.75). Relapse was lower in recipients of FluBu4 (5 years: 30 vs 49 %; p = 0.04), especially in patients with poor risk cytogenetics (22 vs 59 %; p = 0.02) and those >50 years of age (28 vs 51 %; p = 0.02). Overall survival favored FluBu4 recipients at 5 years (53 vs 34 %, p = 0.02), a finding confirmed in multivariate analysis (HR: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.34-0.95; p = 0.03). These data suggest that myeloablative FluBu4 may provide equivalent NRM, reduced relapse, and improved survival compared to FluBu2, emphasizing the importance of busulfan dose in conditioning for AML.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25784222     DOI: 10.1007/s00277-015-2349-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Hematol        ISSN: 0939-5555            Impact factor:   3.673


  3 in total

1.  A multicenter trial of myeloablative clofarabine and busulfan conditioning for relapsed or primary induction failure AML not in remission at the time of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  J Magenau; P Westervelt; S Khaled; J McGuirk; P Hari; M Eapen; P S Becker; B Parkin; T Braun; B Logan; H Wang; M Jagasia; S D Rowley; D D H Kim; T Schechter; N Frey; B Scott; T Churay; S Lieland; S Forman; S Mineishi
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 5.483

2.  Combination Therapy for Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis with Etanercept and Extracorporeal Photopheresis: Results of a Phase II Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Carrie L Kitko; Thomas Braun; Daniel R Couriel; Sung W Choi; James Connelly; Sandra Hoffmann; Steven Goldstein; John Magenau; Attaphol Pawarode; Pavan Reddy; Charles Schuler; Gregory A Yanik; James L Ferrara; John E Levine
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Impact of conditioning intensity in T-replete haplo-identical stem cell transplantation for acute leukemia: a report from the acute leukemia working party of the EBMT.

Authors:  Marie T Rubio; Bipin N Savani; Myriam Labopin; Simona Piemontese; Emmanuelle Polge; Fabio Ciceri; Andrea Bacigalupo; William Arcese; Yener Koc; Dietrich Beelen; Zafer Gülbas; Depei Wu; Stella Santarone; Johanna Tischer; Boris Afanasyev; Christoph Schmid; Sebastian Giebel; Mohamad Mohty; Arnon Nagler
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 17.388

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.