Table 3. Main randomized clinical trials... | American Society of Hematology

Table 3.

Main randomized clinical trials comparing single and tandem transplant

Trial	Number of patients	Regimens	Efficacy	Benefit
IFM 94³¹	399	Mel 140/TBI vs Mel 140/TBI, then Mel 140	mEFS: 25 vs 30 mo (P = .03) mPFS: 29 vs 36 mo (P < .01) mOS: 48 vs 58 mo (P = .01)	EFS + PFS + OS
Bologna 96³²	321	Mel 200 vs Mel 200, then Mel 120 + Bu 4	mEFS: 23 vs 35 mo (P = .001) mPFS: 24 vs 42 mo (P < .001) mOS: 65 vs 71 mo (P = .09)	EFS + PFS + OS
GMMG HD2³³	358	Mel 200 vs Mel 200, then Mel 200	mEFS: 25 vs 28.7 mo mOS: 73 vs 75.3 mo	Not significant
EMN02/HO95²⁰	1197	Mel 200 vs Mel 200, then Mel 200	5y-PFS: 44.9% vs 53.5% (P = .036) 5y-OS: 72.6% vs 80.3% (P = .022)	PFS + OS
STAMINA³⁴	758	Mel 200 vs Mel 200, then VRD vs Mel 200, then Mel 200	38 mo-PFS: 58.5% vs 57.8% vs 53.9% 38 mo-OS: 81.8% vs 85.4% vs 83.7%	Not significant

Trial	Number of patients	Regimens	Efficacy	Benefit
IFM 94³¹	399	Mel 140/TBI vs Mel 140/TBI, then Mel 140	mEFS: 25 vs 30 mo (P = .03) mPFS: 29 vs 36 mo (P < .01) mOS: 48 vs 58 mo (P = .01)	EFS + PFS + OS
Bologna 96³²	321	Mel 200 vs Mel 200, then Mel 120 + Bu 4	mEFS: 23 vs 35 mo (P = .001) mPFS: 24 vs 42 mo (P < .001) mOS: 65 vs 71 mo (P = .09)	EFS + PFS + OS
GMMG HD2³³	358	Mel 200 vs Mel 200, then Mel 200	mEFS: 25 vs 28.7 mo mOS: 73 vs 75.3 mo	Not significant
EMN02/HO95²⁰	1197	Mel 200 vs Mel 200, then Mel 200	5y-PFS: 44.9% vs 53.5% (P = .036) 5y-OS: 72.6% vs 80.3% (P = .022)	PFS + OS
STAMINA³⁴	758	Mel 200 vs Mel 200, then VRD vs Mel 200, then Mel 200	38 mo-PFS: 58.5% vs 57.8% vs 53.9% 38 mo-OS: 81.8% vs 85.4% vs 83.7%	Not significant

Bu 4, busulfan 4 mg/kg; Mel 140, melphalan 140 mg/m².