Treosulfan has been incorporated in conditioning regimens for sustained remission without substantial toxicity and treatment-related mortality (TRM). We aimed to analyze the safety and efficacy of a fludarabine 150 mg/m and treosulfan 42 g/m (FluTreo) conditioning regimen in medically infirm patients. Outcomes were compared with those of a similar historical group treated with fludarabine 150 mg/m to 180 mg/m, busulfan 6.4 mg/kg, and antithymocyte globulin (ATG) 5 mg/kg to 7.5 mg/kg (FluBuATG). Thirty-one consecutive patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 21), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS; n = 6), or treatment-related AML (n = 4) received FluTreo conditioning. The historical group consisted of 26 consecutive patients treated with FluBuATG. In the FluTreo group, engraftment was prompt in all patients and 74% achieved >99% donor chimerism by day +30. No grades III or IV organ toxicities were noted. One-year cumulative incidences (CI) of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) were 19.4% and 58.4%. The groups were similar for age, disease risk, lines of treatment, hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index, and acute or chronic GVHD incidence, except that there were more matched unrelated donor recipients in the FluTreo group (P < .001). With 20 (range, 2 to 36) months follow-up for FluTreo and 14 (range, 2 to 136) for FluBuATG, the 1-year cumulative overall survival (OS) probability was 76% versus 57%, respectively (P = .026); 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 79% versus 38% (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, the only significantly favorable factor for OS and DFS was FluTreo (P = .010 and P = .012). The CI of relapse mortality was markedly decreased in FluTreo versus FluBuATG (7.4% versus 42.3%, P < .001). In conclusion, the treosulfan-based regimen resulted in favorable OS and DFS with acceptable toxicity and low relapse rates compared with busulfan-based conditioning.
The role of total body irradiation (TBI) in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains controversial. Therefore, we investigated long-term treatment outcomes of transplanted ALL patients aiming to identify prognostic factors and the impact of conditioning. We enrolled consecutive ALL patients transplanted from 1990 to 2016, following TBI- or busulfan (Bu)-based conditioning regimen. We studied 151 ALL patients transplanted in first complete remission (CR) (60), other CR (33), or relapsed/refractory disease (58) from sibling (87), and HLA-matched (42) or mismatched (17) unrelated and alternative donors (5). High-dose fractionated TBI-based conditioning was administered in 84. No differences were observed in baseline characteristics, except for disease stage at transplant, donor type, and graft source. With a follow-up of 19.0 (0.5-170.5) in TBI and 14.5 (1.2-319.1) months in non-TBI patients, there was no difference in acute (grades II-IV) or chronic GVHD, thrombotic microangiopathy, and bacterial or fungal infections. Only viral infections were significantly increased in the non-TBI group. There was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence (CI) of treatment-related or relapse mortality and disease-free or overall survival (OS). In the multivariate analysis, unfavorable pre-transplant predictors of OS were age (p = 0.024), advanced disease stage (p = 0.007), and female-to-male donor (p = 0.006). Interestingly, TBI patients younger than 40 years had significantly higher OS (55.1%, p = 0.023) and DFS (48.6%, p = 0.020). In conclusion, high-dose TBI is feasible in younger patients providing better survival. The choice between TBI- or Bu-conditioning regimens remains challenging.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.