Treosulfan compared to busulfan in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelofibrosis: a registry-based study from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT

We aimed to compare outcomes following treosulfan (TREO) or busulfan (BU) conditioning in a large cohort of myelofibrosis (MF) patients from the EBMT registry. A total of 530 patients were included; 73 received TREO and 457 BU (BU ≤ 6.4 mg/kg in 134, considered RIC, BU > 6.4 mg/kg in 323 consider...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Bone marrow transplantation (Basingstoke) 2024-07, Vol.59 (7), p.928-935
Hauptverfasser: Robin, Marie, Iacobelli, Simona, Koster, Linda, Passweg, Jakob, Avenoso, Daniele, Wilson, Keith M. O., Salmenniemi, Urpu, Dreger, Peter, von dem Borne, Peter, Snowden, John A., Robinson, Stephen, Finazzi, Maria Chiara, Schroeder, Thomas, Collin, Matthew, Eder, Matthias, Forcade, Edouard, Loschi, Michael, Bramanti, Stefania, Pérez-Simón, Jose Antonio, Czerw, Tomasz, Polverelli, Nicola, Drozd-Sokolowska, Joanna, Raj, Kavita, Hernández-Boluda, Juan Carlos, McLornan, Donal P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We aimed to compare outcomes following treosulfan (TREO) or busulfan (BU) conditioning in a large cohort of myelofibrosis (MF) patients from the EBMT registry. A total of 530 patients were included; 73 received TREO and 457 BU (BU ≤ 6.4 mg/kg in 134, considered RIC, BU > 6.4 mg/kg in 323 considered higher dose (HD)). Groups were compared using adjusted Cox models. Cumulative incidences of engraftment and acute GVHD were similar across the 3 groups. The TREO group had significantly better OS than BU-HD (HR:0.61, 95% CI: 0.39–0.93) and a trend towards better OS over BU-RIC (HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.41–1.05). Moreover, the TREO cohort had a significantly better Progression-Free-Survival (PFS) than both the BU-HD (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38–0.84) and BU-RIC (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39–0.91) cohorts, which had similar PFS estimates. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was reduced in the TREO and BU-RIC cohorts (HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.24–0.80 TREO vs BU-HD; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.28–1.04 TREO vs BU-RIC). Of note, relapse risk did not significantly differ across the three groups. In summary, within the limits of a registry-based study, TREO conditioning may improve PFS in MF HSCT and have lower NRM than BU-HD with a similar relapse risk to BU-RIC. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
ISSN:0268-3369
1476-5365
1476-5365
DOI:10.1038/s41409-024-02269-4