Imke H Bartelink1, Arief Lalmohamed2, Elisabeth M L van Reij3, Christopher C Dvorak4, Rada M Savic5, Juliette Zwaveling6, Robbert G M Bredius6, Antoine C G Egberts2, Marc Bierings7, Morris Kletzel8, Peter J Shaw9, Christa E Nath9, George Hempel10, Marc Ansari11, Maja Krajinovic12, Yves Théorêt13, Michel Duval12, Ron J Keizer14, Henrique Bittencourt12, Moustapha Hassan15, Tayfun Güngör16, Robert F Wynn17, Paul Veys18, Geoff D E Cuvelier19, Sarah Marktel20, Robert Chiesa21, Morton J Cowan4, Mary A Slatter22, Melisa K Stricherz23, Cathryn Jennissen23, Janel R Long-Boyle24, Jaap Jan Boelens25. 1. Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Clinical Pharmacy Department, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. 3. Clinical Pharmacy Department, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 4. Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Bone Marrow Transplantation Division, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. 7. Division of Pediatrics, Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 8. Stem Cell Transplant Program, Ann and Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 9. Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 10. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Pharmazeutische und Medizinische Chemie, Münster, Germany. 11. Département de l'Enfant et de l'Adolescent, Hôpital des Enfants, Geneva, Switzerland. 12. Charles-Bruneau Cancer Center, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada. 13. Department of Pharmacology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada; Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, Montreal, QC, Canada. 14. Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA; InsightRX, San Francisco, CA, USA. 15. Division of Experimental Cancer Medicine, Clinical Research Centre, Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 16. Division of Stem Cell Transplantation and Children's Research Center, University Children's Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 17. Department of Haematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, The Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, UK. 18. Bone Marrow Transplantation Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK. 19. CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 20. Stem Cell Program, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 21. Bone Marrow Transplantation Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK; Stem Cell Program, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 22. The Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK. 23. Department of Hematopoietic Cell Transplant, Hematology, and Oncology, University of Minnesota Masonic Children's Hospital, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 24. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA. 25. Division of Pediatrics, Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands; Laboratory of Translational Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. Electronic address: j.j.boelens@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravenous busulfan combined with therapeutic drug monitoring to guide dosing improves outcomes after allogeneic haemopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). The best method to estimate busulfan exposure and optimum exposure in children or young adults remains unclear. We therefore assessed three approaches to estimate intravenous busulfan exposure (expressed as cumulative area under the curve [AUC]) and associated busulfan AUC with clinical outcomes in children or young adults undergoing allogeneic HCT. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, patients from 15 centres in the Netherlands, USA, Canada, Switzerland, UK, Italy, Germany, and Australia who received a busulfan-based conditioning regimen between March 18, 2001, and Feb 12, 2015, were included. Cumulative AUC was calculated by numerical integration using non-linear mixed effect modelling (AUCNONMEM), non-compartmental analysis (AUC from 0 to infinity [AUC0-∞] and to the next dose [AUC0-τ]), and by individual centres using various approaches (AUCcentre). The main outcome of interest was event-free survival. Other outcomes of interest were graft failure or relapse, or both; transplantation-related mortality; acute toxicity (veno-occlusive disease or acute graft versus-host disease [GvHD]); chronic GvHD; overall survival; and chronic-GvHD-free event-free survival. We used propensity-score-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models, Weibull models, and Fine-Gray competing risk regressions for statistical analyses. FINDINGS: 790 patients were enrolled, 674 of whom were included: 274 (41%) with malignant and 400 (59%) with non-malignant disease. Median age was 4·5 years (IQR 1·4-10·7). The median busulfan AUCNONMEM was 74·4 mg × h/L (95% CI 31·1-104·6), which correlated with the standardised method AUC0-∞ (r2=0·74), but the latter correlated poorly with AUCcentre (r2=0·35). Estimated 2-year event-free survival was 69·7% (95% CI 66·2-73·0). Event-free survival at 2 years was 77·0% (95% CI 72·1-82·9) in the 257 patients with an optimum intravenous busulfan AUC of 78-101 mg × h/L compared with 66·1% (60·9-71·4) in the 235 patients at the low historical target of 58-86 mg × h/L and 49·5% (29·2-66·0) in the 44 patients with a high (>101 mg × h/L) busulfan AUC (p=0·011). Compared with the low AUC group, graft failure or relapse occurred less frequently in the optimum AUC group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·39-0·84; p=0·0041). Acute toxicity (HR 1·69, 1·12-2·57; p=0·013) and transplantation-related mortality (2·99, 1·82-4·92; p<0·0001) were significantly higher in the high AUC group (>101 mg × h/L) than in the low AUC group (<78 mg × h/L), independent of indication; no difference was noted between AUC groups for chronic GvHD (<78 mg × h/L vs ≥78 mg × h/L, HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·73-2·33; p=0·37). INTERPRETATION: Improved clinical outcomes are likely to be achieved by targeting the busulfan AUC to 78-101 mg × h/L using a new validated pharmacokinetic model for all indications. FUNDING: Research Allocation Program and the UCSF Helen Friller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Mt Zion Health Fund of the University of California, San Francisco.
BACKGROUND: Intravenous busulfan combined with therapeutic drug monitoring to guide dosing improves outcomes after allogeneic haemopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). The best method to estimate busulfan exposure and optimum exposure in children or young adults remains unclear. We therefore assessed three approaches to estimate intravenous busulfan exposure (expressed as cumulative area under the curve [AUC]) and associated busulfan AUC with clinical outcomes in children or young adults undergoing allogeneic HCT. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, patients from 15 centres in the Netherlands, USA, Canada, Switzerland, UK, Italy, Germany, and Australia who received a busulfan-based conditioning regimen between March 18, 2001, and Feb 12, 2015, were included. Cumulative AUC was calculated by numerical integration using non-linear mixed effect modelling (AUCNONMEM), non-compartmental analysis (AUC from 0 to infinity [AUC0-∞] and to the next dose [AUC0-τ]), and by individual centres using various approaches (AUCcentre). The main outcome of interest was event-free survival. Other outcomes of interest were graft failure or relapse, or both; transplantation-related mortality; acute toxicity (veno-occlusive disease or acute graft versus-host disease [GvHD]); chronic GvHD; overall survival; and chronic-GvHD-free event-free survival. We used propensity-score-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models, Weibull models, and Fine-Gray competing risk regressions for statistical analyses. FINDINGS: 790 patients were enrolled, 674 of whom were included: 274 (41%) with malignant and 400 (59%) with non-malignant disease. Median age was 4·5 years (IQR 1·4-10·7). The median busulfanAUCNONMEM was 74·4 mg × h/L (95% CI 31·1-104·6), which correlated with the standardised method AUC0-∞ (r2=0·74), but the latter correlated poorly with AUCcentre (r2=0·35). Estimated 2-year event-free survival was 69·7% (95% CI 66·2-73·0). Event-free survival at 2 years was 77·0% (95% CI 72·1-82·9) in the 257 patients with an optimum intravenous busulfan AUC of 78-101 mg × h/L compared with 66·1% (60·9-71·4) in the 235 patients at the low historical target of 58-86 mg × h/L and 49·5% (29·2-66·0) in the 44 patients with a high (>101 mg × h/L) busulfan AUC (p=0·011). Compared with the low AUC group, graft failure or relapse occurred less frequently in the optimum AUC group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·39-0·84; p=0·0041). Acute toxicity (HR 1·69, 1·12-2·57; p=0·013) and transplantation-related mortality (2·99, 1·82-4·92; p<0·0001) were significantly higher in the high AUC group (>101 mg × h/L) than in the low AUC group (<78 mg × h/L), independent of indication; no difference was noted between AUC groups for chronic GvHD (<78 mg × h/L vs ≥78 mg × h/L, HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·73-2·33; p=0·37). INTERPRETATION: Improved clinical outcomes are likely to be achieved by targeting the busulfan AUC to 78-101 mg × h/L using a new validated pharmacokinetic model for all indications. FUNDING: Research Allocation Program and the UCSF Helen Friller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Mt Zion Health Fund of the University of California, San Francisco.
Authors: Timothy Madden; Marcos de Lima; Neil Thapar; John Nguyen; Soonja Roberson; Daniel Couriel; Betty Pierre; Elizabeth J Shpall; Roy B Jones; Richard E Champlin; Borje S Andersson Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Mohamed A Kharfan-Dabaja; Myriam Labopin; Ali Bazarbachi; Gerard Socie; Nicolaus Kroeger; Didier Blaise; Hendrik Veelken; Arancha Bermudez; Reuven Or; Bruno Lioure; Dietrich Beelen; Nathalie Fegueux; Rose Marie Hamladji; Arnon Nagler; Mohamad Mohty Journal: Leuk Res Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 3.156
Authors: Selim Corbacioglu; Simone Cesaro; Maura Faraci; Dominique Valteau-Couanet; Bernd Gruhn; Attilio Rovelli; Jaap J Boelens; Annette Hewitt; Johanna Schrum; Ansgar S Schulz; Ingo Müller; Jerry Stein; Robert Wynn; Johann Greil; Karl-Walter Sykora; Susanne Matthes-Martin; Monika Führer; Anne O'Meara; Jacek Toporski; Petr Sedlacek; Paul G Schlegel; Karoline Ehlert; Anders Fasth; Jacek Winiarski; Johan Arvidson; Christine Mauz-Körholz; Hulya Ozsahin; Andre Schrauder; Peter Bader; Joseph Massaro; Ralph D'Agostino; Margaret Hoyle; Massimo Iacobelli; Klaus-Michael Debatin; Christina Peters; Giorgio Dini Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J T Slattery; R A Clift; C D Buckner; J Radich; B Storer; W I Bensinger; E Soll; C Anasetti; R Bowden; E Bryant; T Chauncey; H J Deeg; K C Doney; M Flowers; T Gooley; J A Hansen; P J Martin; G B McDonald; R Nash; E W Petersdorf; J E Sanders; G Schoch; P Stewart; R Storb; K M Sullivan; E D Thomas; R P Witherspoon; F R Appelbaum Journal: Blood Date: 1997-04-15 Impact factor: 22.113
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: S P Dix; J R Wingard; R E Mullins; I Jerkunica; T G Davidson; C E Gilmore; R C York; L S Lin; S M Devine; R B Geller; L T Heffner; C D Hillyer; H K Holland; E F Winton; R Saral Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Michelle Geddes; S Bill Kangarloo; Farrukh Naveed; Diana Quinlan; M Ahsan Chaudhry; Douglas Stewart; M Lynn Savoie; Nizar J Bahlis; Christopher Brown; Jan Storek; Borje S Andersson; James A Russell Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: H M Shulman; K M Sullivan; P L Weiden; G B McDonald; G E Striker; G E Sale; R Hackman; M S Tsoi; R Storb; E D Thomas Journal: Am J Med Date: 1980-08 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Gheath Alatrash; Kelly M Kidwell; Peter F Thall; Antonio Di Stasi; Julianne Chen; Madhushree Zope; Alyssa K Crain; Richard E Champlin; Uday Popat; Elizabeth J Shpall; Roy B Jones; Borje S Andersson Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Claudia Langebrake; Rick Admiraal; Erik van Maarseveen; Agnès Bonnin; Tiene Bauters Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 5.483
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: Mary Eapen; Tao Wang; Paul A Veys; Jaap J Boelens; Andrew St Martin; Stephen Spellman; Carmem Sales Bonfim; Colleen Brady; Andrew J Cant; Jean-Hugues Dalle; Stella M Davies; John Freeman; Katherine C Hsu; Katharina Fleischhauer; Chantal Kenzey; Joanne Kurtzberg; Gerard Michel; Paul J Orchard; Annalisa Paviglianiti; Vanderson Rocha; Michael R Veneris; Fernanda Volt; Robert Wynn; Stephanie J Lee; Mary M Horowitz; Eliane Gluckman; Annalisa Ruggeri Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 18.959
Authors: Kana Mizuno; Min Dong; Tsuyoshi Fukuda; Sharat Chandra; Parinda A Mehta; Scott McConnell; Elias J Anaissie; Alexander A Vinks Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 6.447