Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2024 Jan;59(1):107-116.
doi: 10.1038/s41409-023-02135-9. Epub 2023 Nov 4.

Treosulfan vs busulfan conditioning for allogeneic bmt in children with nonmalignant disease: a randomized phase 2 trial

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Treosulfan vs busulfan conditioning for allogeneic bmt in children with nonmalignant disease: a randomized phase 2 trial

Karl-Walter Sykora et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2024 Jan.

Abstract

Optimal conditioning prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for children with non-malignant diseases is subject of ongoing research. This prospective, randomized, phase 2 trial compared safety and efficacy of busulfan with treosulfan based preparative regimens. Children with non-malignant diseases received fludarabine and either intravenous (IV) busulfan (4.8 to 3.2 mg/kg/day) or IV treosulfan (10, 12, or 14 g/m2/day). Thiotepa administration (2 × 5 mg/kg) was at the investigator's discretion. Primary endpoint was freedom from transplantation (treatment)-related mortality (freedom from TRM), defined as death between Days -7 and +100. Overall, 101 patients (busulfan 50, treosulfan 51) with at least 12 months follow-up were analyzed. Freedom from TRM was 90.0% (95% CI: 78.2%, 96.7%) after busulfan and 100.0% (95% CI: 93.0%, 100.0%) after treosulfan. Secondary outcomes (transplantation-related mortality [12.0% versus 3.9%]) and overall survival (88.0% versus 96.1%) favored treosulfan. Graft failure was more common after treosulfan (n = 11), than after busulfan (n = 2) while all patients were rescued by second procedures except one busulfan patient. CTCAE Grade III adverse events were similar in both groups. This study confirmed treosulfan to be an excellent alternative to busulfan and can be safely used for conditioning treatment in children with non-malignant disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

K-WS: speaker fees Jazz, research and travel grants medac, travel grant Neovii. RB: research and travel grants medac, travel grant Neovii. PB: no relevant disclosures. JS: no relevant disclosures. Ansgar Schulz: no relevant disclosures. JG: no relevant disclosures. JG: no relevant disclosures. DR: no relevant disclosures. JS: no relevant disclosures. FF: no relevant disclosures. BG: Honoraria: Amgen GmbH, EUSA Pharma GmbH, medac GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH; Membership of advisory committee of Amgen GmbH, EUSA Pharma GmbH. FL: no relevant disclosures. Simona Piras: no relevant disclosures. PS: no relevant disclosures. SB: no relevant disclosures. MZ: no relevant disclosures. MC: no relevant disclosures. SC: no relevant disclosures. XL: employee of medac GmbH. JB: employee of medac GmbH. JK: employee of medac GmbH. MM: no relevant disclosures. KK: Speaker’s bureau: JazzPharma, medac, Novartis.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Consort diagramm.
Patient disposition, for In- and Exclusion Criteria see Supplementary Information (1.4).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier curves and forest plots for transplantation-related mortality and overall survival.
All Death Events in Overall Survival are Attributed to Events of Transplantation-related Mortality a Kaplan-Meier estimate of transplantation-related mortality of children with non-malignant disease randomized to treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning prior to allogeneic transplantation (FAS). b Forest plot for transplantation-related mortality displaying 12-month rates by subgroups (FAS) c Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival of children with non-malignant disease randomized to treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning prior to allogeneic transplantation (FAS). d Forest plot for overall survival displaying 12-month rates by subgroups (FAS).

References

    1. Chiesa R, Boelens JJ, Duncan CN, Kühl J-S, Sevin C, Kapoor N, et al. Variables affecting outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy. Blood Adv. 2022;6:1512–24. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005294. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chiesa R, Wang J, Blok H-J, Hazelaar S, Neven B, Moshous D, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation in chronic granulomatous disease: a study of 712 children and adults. Blood. 2020;136:1201–11. doi: 10.1182/blood.2020005590. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ghimenton E, Flinn A, Lum SH, Leahy TR, Nademi Z, Owens S, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation for adenosine deaminase severe combined immunodeficiency-improved outcomes in the modern era. J Clin Immunol. 2022;42:819–26. doi: 10.1007/s10875-022-01238-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. DeFilipp Z, Hefazi M, Chen Y-B, Blazar BR. Emerging approaches to improve allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes for nonmalignant diseases. Blood. 2022;139:3583–93. doi: 10.1182/blood.2020009014. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Slatter MA, Gennery AR. Treosulfan-based conditioning for inborn errors of immunity. Ther Adv Hematol. 2021;12:20406207211013985. doi: 10.1177/20406207211013985. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms