Reduced-intensity conditioning with fludarabine and busulfan versus fludarabine and melphalan for patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a report from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
Fludarabine plus busulfan (FB) and fludarabine plus melphalan (FM) are 2 widely used reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT).
The current survey compared transplantation outcomes for a cohort of 394 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients given bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells from human leukocyte antigen-identical siblings after FB (n = 218) or FM (n = 176). Patients given manipulated grafts and those given T-cell-depleting agents (anti-thymocyte globulins or alemtuzumab) were not included.
At the time of transplantation, 266 patients (68%) were experiencing their first complete remission (CR), 69 (18%) were experiencing a later CR, and 59 (15%) had advanced disease. The incidences of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease were similar in the 2 groups of patients. The 2-year relapse incidence (RI), nonrelapse mortality (NRM) rate, leukemia-free survival (LFS) rate, and overall survival (OS) rate were 31% ± 3%, 18% ± 3%, 51% ± 4%, and 54% ± 4%, respectively, for FB patients and 20% ± 3% (P = .007), 20% ± 3% (P = .4), 60% ± 4% (P = .08), and 62% ± 4% (P = .2), respectively, for FM patients. Among FB patients given intravenous busulfan (n = 81), the 2-year RI, NRM, LFS, and OS rates were 26% ± 5% (P = .43 vs FM patients), 25% ± 6% (P = .18), 49% ± 7% (P = .07), and 54% ± 7% (P = .13), respectively. In multivariate analyses, FM was associated with a lower RI (hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; P = .01) and a trend toward higher NRM (HR, 1.6; P = .1) with similar LFS (HR, 0.8; P = .2) and OS (HR, 0.9; P = .6).
These results suggest that although FM provides better AML control than FB as an RIC regimen for allo-SCT, the 2 regimens provide similar survival. Multicenter randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Baron F
，Labopin M
，Peniket A
，Jindra P
，Afanasyev B
，Sanz MA
，Deconinck E
，Nagler A
，Mohty M
... -
《-》
Busulfan dose intensity and outcomes in reduced-intensity allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia.
Comparisons of myeloablative conditioning versus reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) have demonstrated a tradeoff between relapse and toxicity. Dose intensity across RIC regimens vary and may affect treatment outcomes. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated the effect of i.v. busulfan dosing (total dose 3.2 mg/kg versus 6.4 mg/kg) in RIC regimens that combined fludarabine and busulfan on outcomes in patients who were undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML). A total of 217 consecutive patients with MDS or AML underwent first busulfan and fludarabine RIC peripheral blood stem cell transplantation from well-matched related or unrelated donors at our institutions between 2004 and 2009. Of the 217 patients, 135 patients received Bu1 (3.2 mg/kg of busulfan) and 82 patients received Bu2 (6.4 mg/kg of busulfan), both with daily fludarabine (30 mg/m(2)/day for 4 days). The choice of RIC regimen was based on temporal institutional standard, enrollment on protocols, and physician choice. Patients had similar characteristics with a few notable differences: Patients who received Bu1 were younger (median age 61 versus 64 years, P < . 001), received more single-antigen mismatched unrelated grafts (14.1% versus 1.2%, P < . 001), received more sirolimus-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimens (63% versus 45%, P < .0001), received less antithymocyte globulin for GVHD prophylaxis (0% versus 22%, P < .001), and had less enrollment on a clinical trial that used prophylactic rituximab for the prevention of chronic GVHD (2.2% versus 11.0%, P = .011). Clinical disease status was similar between the groups. Median follow-up for survivors was 4.4 years for Bu1 and 3.2 years for Bu2. Because of the differences in characteristics, the 2 groups were compared with the adjustment of a propensity score that predicted Bu2 to account for measured differences. The day +200 cumulative incidence rates of grades II to IV acute GVHD (Bu1, 17%, versus Bu2, 8.5%; hazard ratio [HR], .56; 95% confidence interval [CI], .22 to 1.41; P = .22) or grades III to IV acute GVHD (Bu1, 6.7%, versus Bu2, 4.9%) were not different. The 2-year cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was not significantly different between Bu1 and Bu2 (41.5% versus 28%, respectively; HR, .70; CI, .42 to 1.17; P = .09). Two-year nonrelapse mortality rates were similar for Bu1 and Bu2 (8.9% versus 9.8%, respectively; HR, .80; CI, .29 to 2.21; P = .67). Two-year progression-free survival and overall survival were also similar between Bu1 and Bu2 (progression-free survival: 40.6% versus 39.3%, respectively; HR, .82; CI, .57 to 1.30; P = .33; and overall survival: 47.4% versus 48.8%, respectively; HR, .96; CI, .64 to 1.44; P = .85). Subset analysis defined by clinical disease and cytogenetic risk with the propensity risk score applied suggest that in patients with high clinical disease risk and nonadverse cytogenetics, the higher dose busulfan RIC regimen may be of marginal benefit (2-year progression-free survival: HR, .54; CI, .29 to 1.03; P = .062). For the majority of patients with MDS or AML undergoing busulfan and fludarabine RIC peripheral blood stem cell transplantation, however, the dose of busulfan (3.2 mg/kg versus 6.4 mg/kg) is not associated with significant differences in overall outcomes.
Chen YB
，Coughlin E
，Kennedy KF
，Alyea EP
，Armand P
，Attar EC
，Ballen KK
，Cutler C
，Dey BR
，Koreth J
，McAfee SL
，Spitzer TR
，Antin JH
，Soiffer RJ
，Ho VT
... -
《-》
Fludarabine/Busulfan versus Fludarabine/Melphalan Conditioning in Patients Undergoing Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma.
There is at present little data to guide the choice of conditioning for patients with lymphoma undergoing reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). In this study, we compared the outcomes of patients undergoing RIC SCT who received fludarabine and melphalan (FluMel), the standard RIC regimen used by the Spanish Group of Transplantation, and fludarabine and busulfan (FluBu), the standard RIC regimen used by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital. We analyzed 136 patients undergoing RIC SCT for lymphoma with either FluBu (n = 61) or FluMel (n = 75) conditioning between 2007 and 2014. Median follow-up was 36 months. The cumulative incidence of grades II to IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was 13% with FluBu and 36% with FluMel (P = .002). The cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) at 1 year was 3.3% with FluBu and 31% with FluMel (P < .0001). The cumulative incidence of relapse at 1 year was 29% with FluBu and 10% with FluMel (P = .08). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 47% with FluBu and 36% with FluMel (P = .24), and the 3-year overall survival rate was 62% with FluBu and 48% with FluMel (P = .01). In multivariable analysis, FluMel was associated with a higher risk of acute grades II to IV GVHD (HR, 7.45; 95% CI, 2.30 to 24.17; P = .001) and higher risk of NRM (HR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.36 to 17.44; P = .015). The type of conditioning was not significantly associated with relapse or disease-free survival in multivariable models. However, conditioning regimen was the only factor significantly associated with overall survival: FluMel conditioning was associated with a hazard ratio for death of 2.78 (95% CI, 1.23 to 6.27; P = .014) compared with FluBu. In conclusion, the use of FluBu as conditioning for patients undergoing SCT for lymphoma was associated with a lower risk of acute GVHD and NRM and improved overall survival when compared with FluMel in our retrospective study. These results confirm the differences between these RIC regimens in terms of toxicity and efficacy and support the need for comparative prospective studies.
Kekre N
，Marquez-Malaver FJ
，Cabrero M
，Piñana J
，Esquirol A
，Soiffer RJ
，Caballero D
，Terol MJ
，Martino R
，Antin JH
，Lopez-Corral L
，Solano C
，Armand P
，Pérez-Simon JA
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
