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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2024 May;59(5):670-679.
doi: 10.1038/s41409-024-02241-2. Epub 2024 Feb 21.

Fludarabine-treosulfan versus fludarabine-melphalan or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in older AML or MDS patients - A clinical trial to registry data comparison

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Fludarabine-treosulfan versus fludarabine-melphalan or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in older AML or MDS patients - A clinical trial to registry data comparison

Dietrich Wilhelm Beelen et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2024 May.

Abstract

A randomized study (acronym: MC-FludT.14/L Trial II) demonstrated that fludarabine plus treosulfan (30 g/m²) was an effective and well tolerated conditioning regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). To further evaluate this regimen, all 252 study patients aged 50 to 70 years were compared with similar patients, who underwent allo-HCT after fludarabine/melphalan (140 mg/m²) (FluMel) or busulfan (12.8 mg/kg)/cyclophosphamide (120 mg/kg) (BuCy) regimens and whose data was provided by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry. In 1:1 propensity-score matched-paired analysis (PSA) of AML patients, there was no difference in 2-year-relapse-incidence after FluTreo compared with either FluMel (n = 110, p = 0.28) or BuCy (n = 78, p = 0.98). However, 2-year-non-relapse-mortality (NRM) was lower compared with FluMel (p = 0.019) and BuCy (p < 0.001). Consequently, 2-year-overall-survival (OS) after FluTreo was higher compared with FluMel (p = 0.04) and BuCy (p < 0.001). For MDS patients, no endpoint differences between FluTreo and FluMel (n = 30) were evident, whereas 2-year-OS after FluTreo was higher compared with BuCy (n = 25, p = 0.01) due to lower 2-year-NRM. Multivariate sensitivity analysis confirmed all significant results of PSA. Consequently, FluTreo (30 g/m²) seems to retain efficacy compared with FluMel and BuCy, but is better tolerated by older patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

This study was contracted by medac GmbH, Wedel, Germany after approval of the statistical analysis plan by the Acute and the Chronic Malignancies Working Parties of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Simona Iacobelli, Linda Koster, Dirk-Jan Eikema, Anja van Biezen, Fabio Ciceri, Péter Reményi, Miroslaw Markiewicz. Donal McLornan and Ibrahim Yakoub-Agha have nothing to disclose. Dietrich W. Beelen and Matthias Stelljes have received honoraria from medac GmbH, have been paid to participate in a speakers’ bureau by medac GmbH and received travel and accommodation expenses from medac GmbH; Friedrich Stölzel received honoraria from medac GmbH, has been paid for a consulting or advisory role by medac GmbH, has received travel, accommodation or expenses from medac GmbH; Wolfgang Bethge received honoraria from medac GmbH, has been paid for a consulting or advisory role by Gilead, Novartis, Celgene, BMS; Peter Dreger obtained grants from medac GmbH; Eva-Maria Wagner-Drouet has been paid for a consulting or advisory role by Novartis, Kite Gilead, MSD and received travel, accommodation or expenses from medac GmbH; Mohamad Mohty received lectures honoraria from medac GmbH outside the scope of this work.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Outcome comparison of FluTreo with FluMel or BuCy by propensity score 1:1 matched-pairs analysis of acute myeloid leukemia patients.
Comparison of cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality between (a) FluTreo and FluMel (b) FluTreo and BuCy; comparison of overall survival between (c) FluTreo and FluMel (d) FluTreo and BuCy; non-relapse mortality curves represent cumulative incidence estimates with relapse as competing risk, overall survival curves represent product-limit estimates; p-values for comparisons of non-relapse mortality were calculated by Gray’s test, p-values for comparisons of overall survival were calculated by log-rank test; FluTreo Fludarabine/Treosulfan with a total dose of 30 g/m², FluMel Fludarabine/ Melphalan with a total dose of 140 mg/m²; BuCy Busulfan with a total dose of 12.8 mg/kg and Cyclophosphamide with a total dose of 120 mg/kg (all agents given intravenously).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gyurkocza B, Sandmaier BM. Conditioning regimens for hematopoietic cell transplantation: one size does not fit all. Blood. 2014;124:344–53. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-02-514778. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eapen M, Brazauskas R, Hemmer M, Perez WS, Steinert P, Horowitz MM, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplant for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome: conditioning regimen intensity. Blood Adv. 2018;2:2095–103. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018021980. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ciurea SO, Kongtim P, Varma A, Rondon G, Chen J, Srour S, et al. Is there an optimal conditioning for older patients with AML receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation? Blood. 2020;135:449–52. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019003662. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Casper J, Wolff D, Knauf W, Blau IW, Ruutu T, Volin L, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with hematologic malignancies after dose-escalated treosulfan/fludarabine conditioning. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3344–51. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.3429. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Casper J, Holowiecki J, Trenschel R, Wandt H, Schaefer-Eckart K, Ruutu T, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic SCT in patients with AML following treosulfan/fludarabine conditioning. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2012;47:1171–7. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2011.242. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms