: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common indication for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), yet graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a major post-transplant complication. Conditioning regimens, particularly reduced-intensity approaches, are critical in optimizing outcomes. This subgroup analysis of the phase 3 MC-FludT.14/L trial compared treosulfan-fludarabine with reduced-intensity busulfan-fludarabine in 352 AML patients (aged 31-70) undergoing alloHCT. The primary endpoint was 24-month event-free survival (EFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), GVHD incidence, relapse/progression, and non-relapse mortality (NRM). Treosulfan compared to busulfan demonstrated superiority: 24-month EFS was 65% vs. 53% (p = 0.01), and OS was 73% vs. 65%. EFS benefits were consistent across AML risk categories and notably higher in patients with hematopoietic cell transplantation comorbidity index >2 (62% vs. 42%, p = 0.02). Treosulfan also showed lower NRM and relapse rates. GVHD outcomes favored treosulfan, with a significantly lower incidence of extensive chronic GVHD at 24 months (15.1% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.01). GVHD-free and relapse-free survival was also improved (53% vs. 40%, p = 0.02). The safety profile was more favorable with treosulfan. These findings support treosulfan-fludarabine as a more effective and safer conditioning regimen than busulfan-fludarabine for AML patients undergoing alloHCT, particularly those at higher risk.

GVHD and GRFS in patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing allogeneic HCT with treosulfan- versus reduced-intensity busulfan-based conditioning: a subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial

Russo, Domenico
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Khan, Imran;
2026-01-01

Abstract

: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common indication for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), yet graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a major post-transplant complication. Conditioning regimens, particularly reduced-intensity approaches, are critical in optimizing outcomes. This subgroup analysis of the phase 3 MC-FludT.14/L trial compared treosulfan-fludarabine with reduced-intensity busulfan-fludarabine in 352 AML patients (aged 31-70) undergoing alloHCT. The primary endpoint was 24-month event-free survival (EFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), GVHD incidence, relapse/progression, and non-relapse mortality (NRM). Treosulfan compared to busulfan demonstrated superiority: 24-month EFS was 65% vs. 53% (p = 0.01), and OS was 73% vs. 65%. EFS benefits were consistent across AML risk categories and notably higher in patients with hematopoietic cell transplantation comorbidity index >2 (62% vs. 42%, p = 0.02). Treosulfan also showed lower NRM and relapse rates. GVHD outcomes favored treosulfan, with a significantly lower incidence of extensive chronic GVHD at 24 months (15.1% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.01). GVHD-free and relapse-free survival was also improved (53% vs. 40%, p = 0.02). The safety profile was more favorable with treosulfan. These findings support treosulfan-fludarabine as a more effective and safer conditioning regimen than busulfan-fludarabine for AML patients undergoing alloHCT, particularly those at higher risk.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11379/643328
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact