Open AccessBusulfan‐containing conditioning regimens in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A Taiwan observational study
Author(s) -
Wang YuHung,
Tien FengMing,
Tsai ChengHong,
Huang HuaiHsuan,
Liu JiaHau,
Liao XiuWen,
Tang JihLuh,
Yao Ming,
Ko BorSheng
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
cancer reports
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.261
H-Index - 5
ISSN - 2573-8348
DOI - 10.1002/cnr2.1488
Subject(s) - busulfan , medicine , total body irradiation , hematopoietic stem cell transplantation , regimen , cyclophosphamide , transplantation , cumulative incidence , gastroenterology , surgery , chemotherapy
Abstract Background Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo‐HSCT) is the ultimate cure for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Aim This study was performed to compare the outcomes of ALL patients receiving busulfan (Bu) with cyclophosphamide (Cy)‐based or total body irradiation (TBI)‐based regimen in a Chinese population. Methods We enrolled 224 adult patients with ALL who received allo‐HSCT at National Taiwan University Hospital between 1997 and 2016. Results The median age at transplantation was 33 years. Before allo‐HSCT, 75.9% of patients attained first or late complete remission. A total of 141 patients (62.9%) received Bu/Cy‐based conditioning, either myeloablative (MA) or reduced‐intensity stem cell transplantation (RIST), and 83 patients received a TBI‐based regimen (MA‐TBI). Patients receiving the MA‐Bu regimen had longer relapse‐free survival (RFS) than those receiving the MA‐TBI regimen (median, 24.1 vs. 6.7 months, p = .044). There was no difference in overall survival (OS, MA‐Bu vs. MA‐TBI vs. RIST‐Bu: 39.4 vs. 28.2 vs. 13.1 months, p = .276), treatment‐related mortality (TRM), or incidences of grade 3–4 acute graft‐versus‐host disease (GvHD). Among patients receiving identical GvHD prophylactic regimens, there was no difference between MA‐Bu and MA‐TBI groups regarding the incidence of grade 3–4 acute GvHD, grade 2–4, and all‐grade chronic GvHD. In subgroup analysis, patients receiving oral busulfan had comparable RFS and OS to the intravenous busulfan group ( p = .436 and p = .236, respectively), but a higher TRM (25% vs. 9.8%, p = .016). In the multivariable analysis, disease status before allo‐HSCT was the only risk factor impacting RFS and OS. Conclusion In summary, patients receiving Bu/Cy‐based or TBI‐based regimens as conditioning had similar results in terms of OS, TRM, and acute GvHD, whereas the use of myeloablative Bu/Cy resulted in a better RFS. A Bu‐based regimen could be an alternative conditioning choice for patients who are ineligible to receive TBI. Prospective and randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate the long‐term outcomes.