All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know AML.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your AML Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe AML Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the AML Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The AML Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The AML Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology, Roche, Syndax and Thermo Fisher, and has been supported through a grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Bookmark this article
For many patients with hematological malignancies, like acute myeloid leukemia (AML), with poor outcome prognosis, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) at first remission (CR1) is a common treatment strategy.1 However, allo-SCT is associated with significant non-relapse mortality (NRM) when combined with traditional myeloablative conditioning regimens. Conventional myeloablation is based on high intensity busulfan (Bu) or total body irradiation (TBI) in combination with cyclophosphamide (Cy).1,2 To reduce the risk of toxicity, reduced-intensity or non-myeloablative conditioning regimens have been developed. Nevertheless, these are not as efficient in reducing disease recurrence. To find the right balance between efficacy and safety, reduced toxicity regimens using Bu or TBI at moderate doses together with fludarabine (Flu) have been proposed.1,2
During the 61st American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting & Exposition on Monday 9th December 2019, Sebastian Giebel from Maria Skłodowska Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, PL, presented the results of a retrospective study by the Acute Leukaemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) that compared reduced toxicity Bu/Flu to similar intensity TBI/Flu in patients with AML who were treated with allo-SCT. The primary endpoint of this study was leukemia-free survival (LFS), while the key secondary objectives included, NRM, relapse incidence (RI), overall survival (OS), and graft-versus-host disease (GvHD)-free relapse-free survival (GRFS).
Read more on the use of transplantation for the treatment of AML here.
allo-SCT, allogeneic stem cell transplantation; BU, busulfan; Flu, fludarabine; TBI, total body irradiation Statistically significant values are indicated in bold |
|||
|
Bu/Flu (N= 350) |
TBI/Flu (N= 168) |
p value |
---|---|---|---|
Median follow-up, months |
23 |
57 |
< 0.0001 |
Age, years |
56.5 (18-73) |
50 (20.5-71) |
< 0.0001 |
Interval: diagnosis to allo-SCT, months |
5 (1-18) |
4 (2-16) |
< 0.0001 |
Male patients, % |
53 |
58 |
0.33 |
Poor risk AML karyotype, % |
26 |
26 |
0.96 |
Karnofsky score < 80, % |
4 |
0 |
0.004 |
Donor, %: Matched sibling Unrelated |
47 53 |
58 42 |
0.02 |
Stem cell source, % Bone marrow Peripheral blood |
9 91 |
5 95 |
0.07 |
aGvHD, Acute GvHD; BU; busulfan; cGvHD; Chronic GvHD; TBI, total body irradiation Statistically significant values are indicated in bold |
||
TBI/Flu vs Bu/Flu |
Patients < 50 years |
Patients ≥ 50 years |
---|---|---|
aGvHD grade 2-4, % |
15 vs 26 (p= 0.12) |
23 vs 24 (p= 0.74) |
aGvHD grade 3-4, % |
2 vs 12 (p= 0.02) |
5 vs 8 (p= 0.37) |
cGvHD overall, % |
38 vs 38 (p= 0.91) |
37 vs 37 (p= 0.92) |
cGvHD extensive, % |
20 vs 10 (p= 0.08) |
16 vs 17 (p= 0.8) |
Bu, busulfan; Flu, fludarabine; GRFS, graft-versus-host disease (GvHD)-free, relapse-free survival; LFS, leukemia-free survival; NRM, non-relapse mortality; OS, Overall survival; RI, relapse incidence; TBI, total body irradiation Statistically significant values are indicated in bold |
||||||
TBI/Flu vs Bu/Flu |
Patients < 50 years |
Patients ≥ 50 years |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
HR |
95% CI |
p value |
HR |
95% CI |
p value |
RI |
0.49 |
0.24-1.0 |
0.049 |
0.64 |
0.33-1.28 |
0.21 |
NRM |
0.17 |
0.02-1.39 |
0.1 |
3.98 |
1.81-8.76 |
0.0006 |
LFS |
0.45 |
0.23-0.88 |
0.02 |
1.31 |
0.80-2.12 |
0.28 |
OS |
0.29 |
0.13-0.63 |
0.002 |
1.53 |
0.92-2.55 |
0.1 |
GRFS |
0.53 |
0.31-0.92 |
0.02 |
1.09 |
0.71-1.68 |
0.69 |
Both the reduced-intensity conditioning regimens examined in this retrospective study (TBI/Flu and Bu/Flu) resulted in low RI rates and low NRM following allo-SCT. Thus, they both present a good regimen for patients with AML in CR1. When looking at the patient population in two different age groups (< 50 or ≥ 50 years old), TBI/Flu was more efficacious than Bu/Flu in younger patients with a lower RI and higher GFRS, LFS, and OS. The incidence of acute grade 3-4 GvHD was also significantly reduced with TBI/Flu vs Bu/Flu in younger patients. Nevertheless, in older patients (≥ 50 years old) TBI/Flu was associated with an increased NRM risk and should be used with caution. Despite the limitation of the retrospective design of this study, the results are very informative and encourage further prospective clinical trials with age-dependent stratification of patients to such conditioning regimens.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox