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 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 Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, Kura Oncology and Syndax, and has been supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and the Hippocrate Conference Institute, an association of the Servier Group. 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.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View aml content recommended for you
Myeloablative conditioning regimen is associated with high non-relapse mortality (NRM) rates in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).1 Regimens which fuse the lower organ toxicity associated with reduced intensity conditioning and the antileukemic activity observed with myeloablative conditioning have been provisionally named as reduced toxicity conditioning regimens.1 One promising reduced toxicity conditioning regimen is fludarabine + treosulfan (FluTreo).
Recently, Beelen et al.1 published an observational comparative analysis of FluTreo vs fludarabine + (FluMel) or + (BuCy) in Bone Marrow Transplantation. Here, we summarize the key findings below.
Figure 1. 1:1 PSA of clinical endpoints 2-years posttransplant for A FluTreo vs FluMel and B FluTreo vs BuCy*
BuCy, busulfan + cyclophosphamide; FluMel, fludarabine + melphalan; FluTreo, fludarabine + treosulfan; NRM, non-relapse mortality; OS, overall survival; PSA, propensity score matched analysis; RI, relapse incidence.
*Adapted from Beelen, et al.1
Key learnings |
---|
|
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content