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, Kura Oncology, Roche and Syndax 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
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is most often used to treat acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).1 However, AML and MDS are more prevalent in the elderly, who often cannot tolerate the myeloablative conditioning (MAC) needed prior allo-HSCT. An alternative option for this patient population is the use of a reduced intensity conditioning (RIC), which can increase the number of eligible patients in the 50–70 age range with or without comorbidities, due to a more acceptable toxicity profile. Busulfan plus fludarabine is a well-established RIC regimen for patients who are not able to undergo MAC, but may be associated with an increase in relapse incidence2. Treosulfan plus fludarabine is referred to as a reduced-toxicity MAC regimen, which, with its lower toxicity, may be better tolerated by older or comorbid patients than traditional MAC, and may be comparable or better than existing RIC regimens.3
In his recent publication,3 Dietrich Beelen from the University Hospital of Essen, Essen, DE, and colleagues, presented the final confirmatory results of their open-label, randomized, non-inferiority phase III study (NCT00822393) of treosulfan or busulfan plus fludarabine conditioning prior allo-HSCT in a cohort of patients with AML or MDS. Interim data were previously presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) in 2018, which was summarized by the AML Global Portal here. The trial was terminated early due to reaching its primary endpoint (event free survival [EFS] at 2 years) at the second interim analysis.
Although Dietrich Beelen and colleagues highlighted some limitations of this study—lack of measurable residual disease assessment for stratified randomization, and the open-label nature of the trial—the study showed that treosulfan plus fludarabine results in a better two-year OS than busulfan plus fludarabine in older or comorbid patients (estimated 71.3% vs 56.4%; p= 0.0082). Dietrich et al. concluded that pre-allo-HSCT conditioning with treosulfan plus fludarabine has the potential to become a new standard, as it seems efficacious and tolerable from a difficult to treat population of patients with AML or MDS.
Data are n (%) or median (interquartile range) unless specified; HR, hazard ratio; GvHD, graft-versus-host disease; HSCT, hemopoietic stem cell transplantation; *Based on reverse Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS; †Only if event occurred first; ‡Adjusted for donor type, and risk group and centre using a Cox regression model; §Adjusted for donor type and risk group using Fine and Gray model; ††Patients were at risk if they had survived 100 days post-HSCT without relapse and graft failure; ‡‡Test of Gray. |
||||
|
Treosulfan arm |
Busulfan arm |
HR (95% CI) |
p value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Follow up, *months |
15.4 (8.8–23.6) |
17.4 (6.3–23.4) |
- |
- |
EFS: Patients with event Death† Relapse or progression† Primary graft failure† Secondary graft failure† 24-month EFS (95% CI) |
68 (31%) 23 (10%) 45 (20%) 0 0 64.0% (56.0–70.9) |
100 (42%) 41 (17%) 51 (21%) 1 (<1%) 7 (3%) 50.4 (42.8–57.5) |
- - - - - 0.65 (0.47–0.90) |
- - - - - < 0.0001‡ for non-inferiority; 0.0051‡ for superiority |
Overall Survival (OS): Patients with event 24-month OS (95% CI) |
52 (24%) 71.3% (63.6–77.6) |
82 (34%) 56.4% (48.4–63.6) |
- 0.61 (0.42–0.88) |
- 0.0082‡ |
Relapse or progression: Patients with event Cumulative relapse or progression incidence at 24 months (95% CI) |
45 (20%) 24.6% (17.8–31.3) |
51 (21%) 23.3% (17.6–29.0) |
- 0.87 (0.59–1.30) |
- 0.50§ |
Non-relapse mortality: Patients with event 24-month transplantation related mortality (95% CI) |
23 (10%) 11.4% (7.0–15.9) |
41 (17%) 22.6% (16.2–28.9) |
- 0.60 (0.36–1.01) |
- 0.053§ |
Acute GvHD (grade 2–4) Patients with event Cumulative incidence at 100 days (95% CI) |
114 (52%) 52.1% (45.5–58.7) |
141 (59%) 58.8%(52.5–65.0) |
- 0.83 (0.65–1.06) |
- 0.13††
|
Acute GvHD (grade 3–4) Patients with event Cumulative incidence at 100 days (95% CI) |
14 (6%) 6.4% (3.2–9.6)
|
23 (10%) 9.6% (5.9–13.3) |
- 0.66 (0.34-1.27) |
- 0.21†† |
Chronic GvHD†† Patients with event Cumulative incidence at 24 months (95% CI) |
91/179 (51%) 60.1% (49.8–70.3) |
103/190 (54%) 60.7% (53.1–68.4) |
- 0.91 (0.69–1.20) |
- 0.52†† |
Extensive chronic GvHD‡‡ Patients with event 24-month cumulative incidence (95% CI) |
28/179 (16%) 18.4% (12.0–24.8) |
42/190 (22%) 26.1% (19.2–33.1)
|
- 0.68 (0.42–1.09) |
- 0.11†† |
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to AML delivered to your inbox