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
Francesco Saraceni from the Ravenna Hospital, Ravenna, IT, presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), results from a retrospective study by the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT, which compared the use thiotepa, busulfan, fludarabine (TBF) to busulfan plus cyclophosphamide (BuCy) conditioning regimen in adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients in complete remission (CR1) who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT).
In this retrospective study, 2,523 adult AML patients in CR who underwent first allo-SCT from either from a matched sibling donor (MSD) or unrelated donor (URD) between 2007–2015 were analyzed. Patients received either TBF (n = 153) or BuCY (n = 2,370). In order to reduce bias in this retrospective study, a 1:3 paired-matched analysis was performed and 146 patients treated with TBF was compared to 438 patients receiving BuCy.
In subgroup analysis of patients in CR1, it was observed that compared to the BuCy arm, patients in the TBF arm had a lower risk of RI (5-year RI rate, 18% vs 38%, P = 0.003) and a trend to a better LFS (5-year LFS rate, 57% vs 50%, P = 0.07) with no impact on OS.
TBF provides a strong anti-leukemic activity and is a valid alternative to BuCY as myeloablative conditioning for MSD and UD-SCT in young patients with AML in remission, the speaker concluded. He further added that data from this study “may serve as the scientific background for a well-designed randomized two-arm study comparing TBF to BuCy as MAC pre SCT in AML patients” below the age of 50 years in CR.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox