Fractionated busulfan myeloablative conditioning improves survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome.
acute myeloid leukemia (AML)
busulfan
fractionated
myeloablative
myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 05 2021
15 05 2021
Historique:
revised:
06
11
2020
received:
10
10
2020
accepted:
17
11
2020
pubmed:
21
1
2021
medline:
31
12
2021
entrez:
20
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A myeloablative conditioning regimen can be safely given to older patients and those with comorbidities without increasing nonrelapse mortality (NRM) by fractionating the dose of intravenous busulfan. How this approach compares in efficacy with traditional, nonfractionated, lower dose regimens is unknown. Outcomes were compared in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome who received either myeloablative, fractionated busulfan (f-Bu) dosed to achieve an area under the curve of 20,000 μmol per minute (f-Bu20K) over 2 weeks (n = 84) or a standard, nonfractionated, lower busulfan dose regimen of 16,000 μmol per minute (Bu16K) over 4 days (n = 78). Both groups also received fludarabine 40 mg/m Roughly one-half of the patients were aged >65 years, approximately 40% had poor-risk cytogenetics, approximately 40% of those with AML were not in complete remission, and approximately 40% had a comorbidity index >3. At 2 years, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the f-Bu20K group compared with the Bu16K group (45% vs 24%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8; P = .004). This was because of a significant reduction in progression (34% vs 59%, respectively; HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; P = .003) without any increase in NRM (21% vs 15%, respectively; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-3; P = .3), which resulted in improved overall survival (51% vs 31%, respectively; HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .01). A myeloablative, fractionated busulfan regimen reduces relapse and improves survival without increasing NRM in older patients with AML and myelodysplastic syndrome.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A myeloablative conditioning regimen can be safely given to older patients and those with comorbidities without increasing nonrelapse mortality (NRM) by fractionating the dose of intravenous busulfan. How this approach compares in efficacy with traditional, nonfractionated, lower dose regimens is unknown.
METHODS
Outcomes were compared in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome who received either myeloablative, fractionated busulfan (f-Bu) dosed to achieve an area under the curve of 20,000 μmol per minute (f-Bu20K) over 2 weeks (n = 84) or a standard, nonfractionated, lower busulfan dose regimen of 16,000 μmol per minute (Bu16K) over 4 days (n = 78). Both groups also received fludarabine 40 mg/m
RESULTS
Roughly one-half of the patients were aged >65 years, approximately 40% had poor-risk cytogenetics, approximately 40% of those with AML were not in complete remission, and approximately 40% had a comorbidity index >3. At 2 years, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the f-Bu20K group compared with the Bu16K group (45% vs 24%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8; P = .004). This was because of a significant reduction in progression (34% vs 59%, respectively; HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; P = .003) without any increase in NRM (21% vs 15%, respectively; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-3; P = .3), which resulted in improved overall survival (51% vs 31%, respectively; HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS
A myeloablative, fractionated busulfan regimen reduces relapse and improves survival without increasing NRM in older patients with AML and myelodysplastic syndrome.
Substances chimiques
Myeloablative Agonists
0
Busulfan
G1LN9045DK
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1598-1605Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021 American Cancer Society.
Références
Horowitz MM, Gale RP, Sondel PM, et al. Graft-versus-leukemia reactions after bone marrow transplantation. Blood. 1990;75:555-562.
Giralt S, Ballen K, Rizzo D, et al. Reduced-intensity conditioning regimen workshop: defining the dose spectrum. Report of a workshop convened by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15:367-369.
Slavin S, Nagler A, Naparstek E, et al. Nonmyeloablative stem cell transplantation and cell therapy as an alternative to conventional bone marrow transplantation with lethal cytoreduction for the treatment of malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases. Blood. 1998;91:756-763.
Giralt S, Estey E, Albitar M, et al. Engraftment of allogeneic hematopoietic progenitor cells with purine analog-containing chemotherapy: harnessing graft-versus-leukemia without myeloablative therapy. Blood. 1997;89:4531-4536.
Hourigan CS, Dillon LW, Gui G, et al. Impact of conditioning intensity of allogeneic transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia with genomic evidence of residual disease. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1273-1283.
Popat U, Mehta RS, Bassett R, et al. Optimizing the conditioning regimen for hematopoietic cell transplant in myelofibrosis: long-term results of a prospective phase II clinical trial. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020;26:1439-1445.
Aoudjhane M, Labopin M, Gorin NC, et al. Comparative outcome of reduced intensity and myeloablative conditioning regimen in HLA identical sibling allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients older than 50 years of age with acute myeloblastic leukaemia: a retrospective survey from the Acute Leukemia Working Party (ALWP) of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Leukemia. 2005;19:2304-2312.
Ringden O, Labopin M, Ehninger G, et al. Reduced intensity conditioning compared with myeloablative conditioning using unrelated donor transplants in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4570-4577.
Luger SM, Ringden O, Zhang MJ, et al. Similar outcomes using myeloablative vs reduced-intensity allogeneic transplant preparative regimens for AML or MDS. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2012;47:203-211.
Scott BL, Pasquini MC, Logan BR, et al. Myeloablative versus reduced-intensity hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1154-1161.
Popat UR, Mehta RS, Bassett R, et al. Fludarabine with a higher versus lower dose of myeloablative timed-sequential busulfan in older patients and patients with comorbidities: an open-label, non-stratified, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2018;5:e532-e542.
Slovak ML, Kopecky KJ, Cassileth PA, et al. Karyotypic analysis predicts outcome of preremission and postremission therapy in adult acute myeloid leukemia: a Southwest Oncology Group/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Blood. 2000;96:4075-4083.
Greenberg P, Cox C, LeBeau MM, et al. International scoring system for evaluating prognosis in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 1997;89:2079-2088.
Sorror ML, Maris MB, Storb R, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)-specific comorbidity index: a new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT. Blood. 2005;106:2912-2919.
Scott BL, Sandmaier BM, Storer B, et al. Myeloablative vs nonmyeloablative allogeneic transplantation for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myelogenous leukemia with multilineage dysplasia: a retrospective analysis. Leukemia. 2006;20:128-135.
Shimoni A, Hardan I, Shem-Tov N, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in AML and MDS using myeloablative versus reduced-intensity conditioning: the role of dose intensity. Leukemia. 2006;20:322-328.
Bornhauser M, Kienast J, Trenschel R, et al. Reduced-intensity conditioning versus standard conditioning before allogeneic haemopoietic cell transplantation in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia in first complete remission: a prospective, open-label randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:1035-1044.
Kroger N, Iacobelli S, Franke GN, et al. Dose-reduced versus standard conditioning followed by allogeneic stem-cell transplantation for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome: a prospective randomized phase III study of the EBMT (RICMAC Trial). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2157-2164.
Ciurea SO, Kongtim P, Varma A, et al. Is there an optimal conditioning for older patients with AML receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation? Blood. 2020;135:449-452.
Kroger N, Solano C, Wolschke C, et al. Antilymphocyte globulin for prevention of chronic graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:43-53.
Bacigalupo A, Lamparelli T, Bruzzi P, et al. Antithymocyte globulin for graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis in transplants from unrelated donors: 2 randomized studies from Gruppo Italiano Trapianti Midollo Osseo (GITMO). Blood. 2001;98:2942-2947.
Finke J, Bethge WA, Schmoor C, et al. Standard graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis with or without anti-T-cell globulin in haematopoietic cell transplantation from matched unrelated donors: a randomised, open-label, multicentre phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:855-864.
Walker I, Panzarella T, Couban S, et al. Pretreatment with anti-thymocyte globulin versus no anti-thymocyte globulin in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing haemopoietic cell transplantation from unrelated donors: a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3, multicentre trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:164-173.
Soiffer RJ, Kim HT, McGuirk J, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III clinical trial of anti-T-lymphocyte globulin to assess impact on chronic graft-versus-host disease-free survival in patients undergoing HLA-matched unrelated myeloablative hematopoietic cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:4003-4011.
Kanakry CG, Tsai HL, Bolanos-Meade J, et al. Single-agent GVHD prophylaxis with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide after myeloablative, HLA-matched BMT for AML, ALL, and MDS. Blood. 2014;124:3817-3827.