Abstract
Background:Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens such as Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel are commonly used for patients who are not medically fit for myeloablative conditioning (Shimoni Leukemia 2006). Recent studies have shown lower incidences of non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), and toxicity with Flu/Bu using 2 days of busulfan, whereas Flu/Mel has been associated with longer overall (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) (Shimoni Leukemia 2007, Baron Cancer 2015, Damlaj BBMT 2016). It is unknown whether use of more intense Flu/Bu regimens result in similar outcomes and toxicity profiles when compared to Flu/Mel. We sought to compare the toxicities and outcomes between patients receiving Flu/Bu using either three or four days of busulfan (Flu/Bu3 and Flu/Bu4, respectively) and Flu/Mel.
Methods:We retrospectively evaluated patients with hematologic malignancies who underwent allo-HCT between 2010 and 2015 with Flu/Mel or Flu/Bu as their conditioning regimen. Busulfan was pharmacokinetically (PK) dosed, with a target area under the curve of 4,700 (range 4,100 - 5,200) μmol*min/L. We collected all grade ≥ 3 non-hematologic toxicities from the start of the conditioning regimen up to day +365 or relapse/death, and organized them into organ-based categories. OS and RFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with differences assessed with a log-rank test. The cumulative incidence method for competing risks was used in estimating non-relapse mortality, GVHD, as well as the incidence of individual toxicities, with differences assessed with Gray's test.
Results: We included 167 patients in this toxicity analysis: 42 patients received Flu/Bu and 125 patients received Flu/Mel. Baseline patient and HCT characteristics are shown in Table 1. The most common GVHD prophylaxis in both arms was tacrolimus and mini-methotrexate. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus was similar in both arms. More patients receiving Flu/Bu had acute leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome, matched related donors, and lower hematopoietic cell transplant-comorbidity index scores. The median time to neutrophil (12 days vs 13 days) and platelet engraftment (16 days vs 20 days) was similar between Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel, respectively. Though there were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of toxicities by category between Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel (Table 2), certain toxicities varied. Despite a higher proportion of patients in the Flu/Bu arm receiving antithymocyte globulin, patients receiving Flu/Mel had a higher incidence of infections such as bacteremia (20% vs 5%), CMV reactivation (16% vs 7%), and sepsis (16% vs 0%). Patients receiving Flu/Mel also had more metabolic derangements, specifically hypophosphatemia (51% vs 36%), hypocalcemia (40% vs 26%), hypokalemia (30% vs 17%), hyponatremia (28% vs 14%), and anorexia requiring total parenteral nutrition (17% vs 5%), compared to those receiving Flu/Bu. Rates of grade ≥ 3 mucositis (31% vs 31%), nausea/vomiting (21% vs 17%), and diarrhea (19% vs 21%) were similar for Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel, respectively. Patients receiving Flu/Bu were more likely to experience grade ≥ 3 AST (40% vs 26%) and ALT (29% vs 21%) elevations. However, veno-occlusive disease was rare, occurring in 2 patients who received Flu/Bu and 1 patient receiving Flu/Mel. There was a trend toward a lower incidence of aGVHD in patients receiving Flu/Bu compared to Flu/Mel (31% vs 48% at day 100, respectively, p=0.055). There was no significant difference in NRM (4.8% vs 14.4% at 1 year, p=0.234), OS (78.6% vs 66.9% at 1 year, p=0.15) or RFS (59.5% vs 48.8% at 1 year, p=0.15) between Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel, respectively.
Conclusions: Our results showed similar survival, incidence of aGVHD, and specific organ toxicities between more intense Flu/Bu regimens and Flu/Mel. Our analysis suggests that utilizing PK-dosed busulfan to target more intense Flu/Bu regimens can maximize disease control without increasing serious toxicities. Moreover, extending a PK-dosing strategy to melphalan may similarly achieve favorable outcomes while minimizing toxicity.
No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account Close Modal