Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Fludarabine-treosulfan versus fludarabine-melphalan or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in older AML or MDS patients – A clinical trial to registry data comparison
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Fludarabine-treosulfan versus fludarabine-melphalan or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in older AML or MDS patients – A clinical trial to registry data comparison
Do you wish to request the book?
Fludarabine-treosulfan versus fludarabine-melphalan or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in older AML or MDS patients – A clinical trial to registry data comparison
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Fludarabine-treosulfan versus fludarabine-melphalan or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in older AML or MDS patients – A clinical trial to registry data comparison
2024
Overview
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.
