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.

The AML Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

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 more
  TRANSLATE

The 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.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.

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.

2018-07-19T12:57:55.000Z

FLAMSA versus busulfan/fludarabine conditioning for acute myeloid leukemia patients

Jul 19, 2018
Share:

Bookmark this article

On behalf of the Acute Leukemia Working Party (ALWP) of the EBMT, Thomas Heinicke from Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed outcomes of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients in first or second complete remission (CR1 or CR2) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) after busulfan/fludarabine (BuFlu), sequential FLAMSA (fludarabine + Ara-C + amsacrine chemotherapy) followed by either cyclophosphamide plus total body irradiation (FLAMSA-TBI) or cyclophosphamide plus busulfan (FLAMSA-Bu) conditioning. The study was published ahead of print in Biology of Bone and Marrow Transplantation.

Data was collected from the ALWP of the EBMT registry. Patients with AML undergoing allo-HSCT in CR1 or CR2 between January 2005 and June 2016 were included in the analysis. Patients received either BuFlu (n = 1,197; median age = 58.8 years [range, 20.1–76]) or FLAMSA-TBI (n = 258; median age = 47 years [range, 18.1–66.8]) or FLAMSA-Bu (n = 141; median age = 59.6 years [range, 19.6–74.4]).

The primary endpoint of the study was leukemia-free survival (LFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), refined graft-versus-host-disease-free survival, relapse-free survival (GRFS), neutrophil engraftment, acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), relapse incidence (RI), and non-relapse mortality (NRM).

Key findings:

  • Median follow-up: 24.72 months
  • BuFlu vs FLAMSA-TBI vs FLAMSA-Bu groups:
    • 2-year LFS: 53.6% vs 61.6% vs 50.1%, P = 0.03
    • 2-year OS: 60% vs 68.3% vs 56.4%, N.S
    • GRFS: 40.2% vs 46.9% vs 38.1%, N.S
    • Neutrophil engraftment: 99.75% vs 97.7% vs 97.1%, P < 0.001
    • RI: 30.3% vs 21.9% vs 23.1%, P < 0.01
    • 2-year NRM: 16.1% vs 16.4% vs 26.7%, P < 0.01
  • Cumulative incidence of acute GvHD grade II–IV and grade II–IV by day 100 after allo-SCT: 22.9% (95% CI, 20.8–20.5) and 9.1 (95% CI, 7.7–10.6), respectively
  • Acute GvHD in the BuFlu and the FLAMSA cohort: 21.1% vs 26.9%, P < 0.001
  • 2-year cumulative incidence of chronic GvHD: 34% (95% CI, 31.4–36.5)
  • FLAMSA-TBI compared with BuFlu showed lower relapse incidence (RI): HR = 0.64 (95% CI, 0.42–0.98), P = 0.04
  • FLAMSA-TBI compared with BuFlu showed superior LFS: HR = 0.72 (95% CI, 0.49–1.06), P = 0.09

Taken together, these findings showed that FLAMSA-TBI leads to lower relapse incidence in comparison with BuFlu in AML patients transplanted in CR1 or CR2. The key limitations of this study include its retrospective nature as well as the heterogeneity of the administered GvHD prophylaxis. The authors stated that prospective studies are required to further evaluate the FLAMSA regimen.

References

  1. Heinicke T. et al. Reduced Relapse Incidence with FLAMSA-RIC conditioning compared to Busulfan/Fludarabine for AML-patients in first or second complete remission - A Study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Jul 12. DOI: 1016/j.bbmt.2018.07.007. [Epub ahead of print].

Your opinion matters

HCPs, what is your preferred format for educational content on the AML Hub?
28 votes - 49 days left ...

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox