Login / Signup

Busulfan-fludarabine versus busulfan-cyclophosphamide for allogeneic transplant in acute myeloid leukemia: long term analysis of GITMO AML-R2 trial.

Gianluca CavallaroAnna GrassiChiara PavoniMaria Caterina MicòAlessandro BuscaIrene Maria CavattoniStella SantaroneCarlo BorgheroAttilio OlivieriGiuseppe MilonePatrizia ChiusoloPellegrino MustoRiccardo SaccardiFrancesca PatriarcaFabrizio PaneGiorgia SaporitiPaolo RivelaElisabetta TerruzziRaffaella CerrettiGiuseppe MarottaAngelo Michele CarellaArnon NaglerDomenico RussoPaolo CorradiniPaolo BernasconiAnna Paola IoriLuca CastagnaNicola MordiniElena OldaniCarmen Di GraziaAndrea BacigalupoAlessandro Rambaldi
Published in: Blood cancer journal (2024)
We report the long-term results of a randomized trial (GITMO, AML-R2), comparing 1:1 the combination of busulfan and cyclophosphamide (BuCy2, n = 125) and the combination of busulfan and fludarabine (BuFlu, n = 127) as conditioning regimen in acute myeloid leukemia patients (median age 51 years, range 40-65) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. With a median follow-up of 6 years, significantly better non-relapse mortality (NRM) was confirmed in BuFlu recipients, which is sustained up to 4 years after transplant (10% vs. 20%, p = 0.0388). This difference was higher in patients older than 51 years (11% in BuFlu vs. 27% in BuCy2, p = 0.0262). The cumulative incidence of relapse, which was the first cause of death in the entire study population, did not differ between the two randomized arms. Similarly, the leukemia-free survival (LFS) and overall survival (OS) were not different in the two cohorts, even when stratifying patients per median age. Graft-and relapse-free survival (GRFS) in BuFlu arm vs. the BuCy2 arm was 25% vs. 20% at 4 years and 20% vs. 17% at 10 years. Hence, the benefit gained by NRM reduction is not offsets by an increased relapse. Leukemia relapse remains a major concern, urging the development of new therapeutic approaches.
Keyphrases