Emin Kaya, ÖMER FARUK BAHÇECİOĞLU, Selim Gok, Mehmet Ali Erkurt, Irfan Kuku, Ahmet SARICI, Soykan BİÇİM

Comparison of efficacy and toxicity of treosulfan-fludarabine and busulfancyclophosphamide conditioning regimens in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation

In hematologic malignancy patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT, the optimal conditioning regimen is uncertain and comparative studies of conditioning regimens with each other are needed. In the current study, it was intended to compare the toxicity profile of two myeloablative conditioning regimens (treosulfan-fludarabine vs busulfan-cyclophosphamide) and their effects on clinical outcomes. The data of patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT between 2015 and 2020 in Inonu University Turgut Ozal Medical Center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients receiving treosulfan-fludarabine (treosulfan group) or busulfan-cyclophosphamide (busulfan group) as a conditioning regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT were matched 1:1 according to their disease and age. A total of 42 patients were included in this trial (busulfan:21, treosulfan:21). The mean age of the patients was 45.2±14 years, and regimen-related toxicities and clinical outcomes of both groups were similar (all p>0.05). The median follow-up time of the patients in the treosulfan regimen groups was 9 months, while it was 15 months in the busulfan regimen group (p=0.82). 54.8% of the patients (12 treosulfan, 11 busulfan) died after a median follow-up of 9.5 months. When the effects of the two conditioning regimens on were compared in 28 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients, the engraftment times, acute and chronic graft versus host disease incidences, and sinusoidal obstruction syndrome incidence were found to be similar in busulfan and treosulfan groups (all p>0.05). In addition, the estimated median progression-free survival (p=0.938) and overall survival (p=0.672) of the groups were similar. Treosulfan-fludarabine appears to be a conditioning regimen that can be used as an alternative to busulfan-cyclophosphamide. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm the data in our study.

PDF

___

1. Jethava Y, Sica S, Savani B, et al. Conditioning regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants in acute myeloid leukemia. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017;52:1504-11.
2. Casper J, Wolff D, Knauf W, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with hematologic malignancies after doseescalated treosulfan/fludarabine conditioning. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3344- 51.
3. Kröger N, Shimoni A, Zabelina T, et al. Reduced-toxicity conditioning with treosulfan, fludarabine and ATG as preparative regimen for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) in elderly patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Bone Marrow Transplant. 2006;37:339-44.
4. Ho AY, Pagliuca A, Kenyon M, et al. Reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia with multilineage dysplasia using fludarabine, busulphan, and alemtuzumab (FBC) conditioning. Blood. 2004;104:1616- 23.
5. Parker JE, Shafi T, Pagliuca A, et al. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation in the myelodysplastic syndromes: interim results of outcome following reduced‐intensity conditioning compared with standard preparative regimens. Br J Haematol. 2002;119:144-54.
6. Diaconescu R, Flowers CR, Storer B, et al. Morbidity and mortality with nonmyeloablative compared with myeloablative conditioning before hematopoietic cell transplantation from HLA-matched related donors. Blood. 2004;104:1550-8.
7. Scott BL, Pasquini MC, Logan BR, et al. Myeloablative versus reducedintensity hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1154.
8. Casper J, Knauf W, Kiefer T, et al. Treosulfan and fludarabine: a new toxicity-reduced conditioning regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2004;103:725-31.
9. Ruutu T, Volin L, Beelen DW, et al. Reduced-toxicity conditioning with treosulfan and fludarabine in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelodysplastic syndromes: final results of an international prospective phase II trial. Haematologica. 2011;96:1344.
10. Holowiecki J, Giebel S, Wojnar J, et al. Treosulfan and fludarabine lowtoxicity conditioning for allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in chronic myeloid leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 2008;142:284-92.
11. Nemecek ER, Guthrie KA, Sorror ML, et al. Conditioning with treosulfan and fludarabine followed by allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for high-risk hematologic malignancies. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17:341-50.
12. Filipovich AH, Weisdorf D, Pavletic S, et al. National Institutes of Health consensus development project on criteria for clinical trials in chronic graftversus- host disease: I. Diagnosis and staging working group report. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2005;11:945-56.
13. Mohty M, Malard F, Abecassis M, et al. Revised diagnosis and severity criteria for sinusoidal obstruction syndrome/veno-occlusive disease in adult patients: a new classification from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51:906-12.
14. Döhner H, Estey E, Grimwade D, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood. 2017;129:424-47.
15. Shimoni A, Hardan I, Shem-Tov N, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stemcell transplantation in AML and MDS using myeloablative versus reducedintensity conditioning: the role of dose intensity. Leukemia. 2006;20:322-8.
16. Shimoni A, Labopin M, Savani B, et al. Intravenous busulfan compared with treosulfan-based conditioning for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia: a study on behalf of the Acute Leukemia Working Party of European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24:751-7.
17. Luger SM, Ringdén O, Zhang M-J, et al. Similar outcomes using myeloablative vs reduced-intensity allogeneic transplant preparative regimens for AML or MDS. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47:203-11.
18. Beelen DW, Trenschel R, Stelljes M, et al. Treosulfan or busulfan plus fludarabine as conditioning treatment before allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation for older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (MC-FludT. 14/L): A randomised, noninferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7:e28-e39.
19. Shimoni A, Shem-Tov N, Volchek Y, et al. Allo-SCT for AML and MDS with treosulfan compared with BU-based regimens: reduced toxicity vs reduced intensity. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47:1274-82.
20. Slatter MA, Rao K, Amrolia P, et al. Treosulfan-based conditioning regimens for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children with primary immunodeficiency: United Kingdom experience. Blood. 2011;117:4367-75.
21. Saraceni F, Labopin M, Brecht A, et al. Fludarabine-treosulfan compared to thiotepa-busulfan-fludarabine or FLAMSA as conditioning regimen for patients with primary refractory or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia: a study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). J Hematol Oncol. 2019;12:1-10.
22. Shimoni A, Shem-Tov N, Rand A, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) using fludarabine/treosulfan conditioning regimen compared with busulfan-based myeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning in patients with AML and MDS; relative outcomes depend on disease status at SCT. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16:231.