Ben Abdeljelil N, Kanoun R Y, Mekni S, Turki I, Ben Yaiche I, Ouerghi R, Belloumi D, Torjemane L, Ladeb S, Ben Othman T
{"title":"布磺胺-环磷酰胺vs氟达拉滨-布磺胺用于急性髓系白血病同种异体移植。","authors":"Ben Abdeljelil N, Kanoun R Y, Mekni S, Turki I, Ben Yaiche I, Ouerghi R, Belloumi D, Torjemane L, Ladeb S, Ben Othman T","doi":"10.1080/14796694.2025.2507563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Busulfan and cyclophosphamide (BuCy) is the standard myeloablative conditioning regimen for patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Fludarabine and busulfan (FluBu) conditioning seems to have similar efficacy with less toxicity.</p><p><strong>Aims and methods: </strong>Descriptive retrospective study conducted on patients with AML who underwent geno-identical allo-HSCT between January 2011 and December 2022. Patients received a myeloablative conditioning with either BuCy2 orFluBu4. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of this regimens.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 113 adult patients were included. Conditioning regimen was BuCy2 in 81% of patients (<i>n</i> = 92) and FluBu4 in 19% of patients (<i>n</i> = 21). The 3-year estimated overall survival and event-free survival were 65% vs 81% (<i>p</i> = 0.19) and 58% vs 76% (<i>p</i> = 0.18) in BuCy2 and FluBu4 regimens, respectively. GVHD-Relapse Free Survival was better in FluBu4 group compared to BuCy2 group (28% vs 41%, <i>p</i> = 0.03). The Cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality were 38% vs 14% (<i>p</i> = 0.17) and 15% vs 10% (<i>p</i> = 0.57) in BuCy2 and FluBu4, respectively. Both regimens yield comparable toxicities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Myeloablative FluBu4 conditioning appeared to achieve clinical outcomes similar to BuCy2 and may be considered as a possible alternative for patients at high risk of NRM.</p>","PeriodicalId":12672,"journal":{"name":"Future oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1887-1894"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12150614/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Busulfan-cyclophosphamide vs fludarabine-busulfan for allogeneic transplant in acute myeloid leukemia.\",\"authors\":\"Ben Abdeljelil N, Kanoun R Y, Mekni S, Turki I, Ben Yaiche I, Ouerghi R, Belloumi D, Torjemane L, Ladeb S, Ben Othman T\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14796694.2025.2507563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Busulfan and cyclophosphamide (BuCy) is the standard myeloablative conditioning regimen for patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Fludarabine and busulfan (FluBu) conditioning seems to have similar efficacy with less toxicity.</p><p><strong>Aims and methods: </strong>Descriptive retrospective study conducted on patients with AML who underwent geno-identical allo-HSCT between January 2011 and December 2022. Patients received a myeloablative conditioning with either BuCy2 orFluBu4. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of this regimens.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 113 adult patients were included. Conditioning regimen was BuCy2 in 81% of patients (<i>n</i> = 92) and FluBu4 in 19% of patients (<i>n</i> = 21). The 3-year estimated overall survival and event-free survival were 65% vs 81% (<i>p</i> = 0.19) and 58% vs 76% (<i>p</i> = 0.18) in BuCy2 and FluBu4 regimens, respectively. GVHD-Relapse Free Survival was better in FluBu4 group compared to BuCy2 group (28% vs 41%, <i>p</i> = 0.03). The Cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality were 38% vs 14% (<i>p</i> = 0.17) and 15% vs 10% (<i>p</i> = 0.57) in BuCy2 and FluBu4, respectively. Both regimens yield comparable toxicities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Myeloablative FluBu4 conditioning appeared to achieve clinical outcomes similar to BuCy2 and may be considered as a possible alternative for patients at high risk of NRM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1887-1894\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12150614/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2507563\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2507563","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Busulfan-cyclophosphamide vs fludarabine-busulfan for allogeneic transplant in acute myeloid leukemia.
Background: Busulfan and cyclophosphamide (BuCy) is the standard myeloablative conditioning regimen for patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Fludarabine and busulfan (FluBu) conditioning seems to have similar efficacy with less toxicity.
Aims and methods: Descriptive retrospective study conducted on patients with AML who underwent geno-identical allo-HSCT between January 2011 and December 2022. Patients received a myeloablative conditioning with either BuCy2 orFluBu4. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of this regimens.
Results: A total of 113 adult patients were included. Conditioning regimen was BuCy2 in 81% of patients (n = 92) and FluBu4 in 19% of patients (n = 21). The 3-year estimated overall survival and event-free survival were 65% vs 81% (p = 0.19) and 58% vs 76% (p = 0.18) in BuCy2 and FluBu4 regimens, respectively. GVHD-Relapse Free Survival was better in FluBu4 group compared to BuCy2 group (28% vs 41%, p = 0.03). The Cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality were 38% vs 14% (p = 0.17) and 15% vs 10% (p = 0.57) in BuCy2 and FluBu4, respectively. Both regimens yield comparable toxicities.
Conclusion: Myeloablative FluBu4 conditioning appeared to achieve clinical outcomes similar to BuCy2 and may be considered as a possible alternative for patients at high risk of NRM.
期刊介绍：
Future Oncology (ISSN 1479-6694) provides a forum for a new era of cancer care. The journal focuses on the most important advances and highlights their relevance in the clinical setting. Furthermore, Future Oncology delivers essential information in concise, at-a-glance article formats - vital in delivering information to an increasingly time-constrained community.
The journal takes a forward-looking stance toward the scientific and clinical issues, together with the economic and policy issues that confront us in this new era of cancer care. The journal includes literature awareness such as the latest developments in radiotherapy and immunotherapy, concise commentary and analysis, and full review articles all of which provide key findings, translational to the clinical setting.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
