Comparative study of treosulfan plus Fludarabine (FT14) with busulfan plus Fludarabine (FB4) for acute myeloid leukemia in first or second complete remission: An analysis from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Acute Leukemia Working Party (ALWP)

Busulfan-fludarabine versus busulfan-cyclophosphamide for allogeneic transplant in acute myeloid leukemia: long term analysis of GITMO AML-R2 trial

We report the long-term results of a randomized trial (GITMO, AML-R2), comparing 1:1 the combination of busulfan and cyclophosphamide (BuCy2, n = 125) and the combination of busulfan and fludarabine (BuFlu, n = 127) as conditioning regimen in acute myeloid leukemia patients (median age 51 years, range 40-65) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. With a median follow-up of 6 years, significantly better non-relapse mortality (NRM) was confirmed in BuFlu recipients, which is sustained up to 4 years after transplant (10% vs. 20%, p = 0.0388). This difference was higher in patients older than 51 years (11% in BuFlu vs. 27% in BuCy2, p = 0.0262). The cumulative incidence of relapse, which was the first cause of death in the entire study population, did not differ between the two randomized arms. Similarly, the leukemia-free survival (LFS) and overall survival (OS) were not different in the two cohorts, even when stratifying patients per median age. Graft-and relapse-free survival (GRFS) in BuFlu arm vs. the BuCy2 arm was 25% vs. 20% at 4 years and 20% vs. 17% at 10 years. Hence, the benefit gained by NRM reduction is not offsets by an increased relapse. Leukemia relapse remains a major concern, urging the development of new therapeutic approaches.

Treosulfan- Versus Busulfan-based Conditioning in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Myelodysplastic Syndrome: A Single-center Retrospective Propensity Score-matched Cohort Study

Treosulfan has shown promise in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for its myeloablative properties and low toxicity. In this single-center retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study we compared treosulfan- and busulfan-based conditioning in allogeneic HCT for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). This study included 138 adults who underwent allogeneic HCT for MDS or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia at Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, from 2015 to 2022. Using propensity score matching, we compared transplant outcomes between 2 well-matched cohorts who received conditioning with either fludarabine-treosulfan (FT) (n = 46) or fludarabine-busulfan with total body irradiation (FBT200) (n = 92). A scoring system based on patient age, Karnofsky performance score, and hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index was used to assign patients based on fitness to low-dose (30 g/m2) or high-dose (42 g/m2) treosulfan: 32 (69.6%) received high-dose treosulfan. The racial composition of the 2 groups was similar, with 27.2% and 21.7% of FBT200 and FT recipients, respectively, identifying as non-Caucasian (P = .61). Primary outcomes were analyzed at a median follow-up of 747 days. Of all participants, 116 (84.0%) received graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCY) and antithymocyte globulin (ATG). Patients who received FT had a superior 2-year overall survival (OS) compared to those who received FBT200: 66.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 46.1 to 81.2) versus 44.5% (95% CI: 34 to 54.4), hazard ratio (HR): 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.84 (P = .013). In multivariate analysis (MVA), only the use of fresh grafts (P = .02) and FT (P = .01) were associated with improved OS. FT was associated with superior 2-year relapse-free survival (RFS) compared to FBT200: 63.1% (95% CI: 42.6 to 77.9) versus 39.1% (95% CI: 29.1 to 49.1), HR: 0.44 (95% CI: 0.24 to 0.81), P = .008. In MVA, the use of fresh grafts (P = .03) and FT (P = .009) were associated with improved RFS. Recipients of FT demonstrated superior 2-year graft-versus-host disease relapse-free survival (GRFS) compared to those who received FBT200: 57.4% (95% CI: 37.8 to 72.8) versus 35.1% (95% CI: 25.5 to 45). In MVA, only FT was associated with superior GRFS (P = .02). FT recipients exhibited markedly superior 1-year event-free survival compared to recipients of FBT200 in univariate analysis (40.3% (95% CI: 25.9 to 54.2) versus 9.2% (95% CI: 4.4 to 16.3), HR: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.72), P < .001) and MVA (P = .004). FT was associated with lower 1-year nonrelapse mortality compared to FBT200 in univariate analysis (9.9% (95% CI: 3.0 to 21.8) versus 29.7% (95% CI: 20.6 to 39.3), HR: 0.41 (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.96), P = .04) and MVA (P = .04). Our study utilized propensity score matching to demonstrate superiority of treosulfan- over busulfan-based conditioning in stem cell transplantation of patients with MDS and is the first to evaluate the performance of treosulfan-based conditioning in combination with ATG and PTCY. As such, it contributes to the increasing body of evidence supporting the safety of treosulfan, even at the dose of 42 g/m2.

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 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.

Fludarabine-treosulfan versus fludarabine-melphalan or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in older AML or MDS patients - A clinical trial to registry data comparison

A randomized study (acronym: MC-FludT.14/L Trial II) demonstrated that fludarabine plus treosulfan (30 g/m²) was an effective and well tolerated conditioning regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). To further evaluate this regimen, all 252 study patients aged 50 to 70 years were compared with similar patients, who underwent allo-HCT after fludarabine/melphalan (140 mg/m²) (FluMel) or busulfan (12.8 mg/kg)/cyclophosphamide (120 mg/kg) (BuCy) regimens and whose data was provided by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry. In 1:1 propensity-score matched-paired analysis (PSA) of AML patients, there was no difference in 2-year-relapse-incidence after FluTreo compared with either FluMel (n = 110, p = 0.28) or BuCy (n = 78, p = 0.98). However, 2-year-non-relapse-mortality (NRM) was lower compared with FluMel (p = 0.019) and BuCy (p < 0.001). Consequently, 2-year-overall-survival (OS) after FluTreo was higher compared with FluMel (p = 0.04) and BuCy (p < 0.001). For MDS patients, no endpoint differences between FluTreo and FluMel (n = 30) were evident, whereas 2-year-OS after FluTreo was higher compared with BuCy (n = 25, p = 0.01) due to lower 2-year-NRM. Multivariate sensitivity analysis confirmed all significant results of PSA. Consequently, FluTreo (30 g/m²) seems to retain efficacy compared with FluMel and BuCy, but is better tolerated by older patients.

Cellular therapies in older adults with hematological malignancies: A case-based, state-of-the-art review

Cellular therapies, including autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), and chimeric antigen receptor- (CAR-) T cell therapies are essential treatment modalities for many hematological malignancies. Although their use in older adults has substantially increased within the past decades, cellular therapies represent intensive treatment approaches that exclude a large percentage of older adults due to comorbidities and frailty. Under- and overtreatment in older adults with hematologic malignancy is a challenge and many treatment decisions are influenced by chronologic age. The advent of efficient and well-tolerated newer treatment approaches for multiple myeloma has challenged the role of ASCT. In the modern era, there are no randomized clinical trials of transplant versus non-transplant strategies for patients ≥65 years. Nonetheless, ASCT is feasible for selected older patients and does not result in long-term compromise in quality of life. AlloHCT is the only curative approach for acute myeloid leukemia of intermediate and unfavourable risk but carries a significant risk for non-relapse mortality depending on comorbidities, general fitness, and transplant-specific characteristics, such as intensity of conditioning and donor choice. However, alloHCT is feasible in appropriately-selected older adults. Early referral for evaluation is strongly encouraged as this is the most obvious barrier. CAR-T cell therapies have shown unprecedented clinical efficacy and durability in relapsed and refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Its use is well tolerated in older adults, although evidence comes from limited case numbers. Whether patients who are deemed unfit for ASCT qualify for CAR-T cell therapy remains elusive, but the tolerability and efficacy of CAR-T cell therapy appears promising, especially for older patients. The evidence from randomized trials is strong in favor of using a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) to reduce treatment-related toxicities and guide treatment intensity in the care for solid tumors; its use for evaluation of cellular therapies is less evidence-based. However, CGA can provide useful information on patients' fitness, resilient mechanisms, and reveal potential optimization strategies for compensating for vulnerabilities. In this narrative review, we will discuss key questions on cellular therapies in older adults based on illustrative patient cases.

Validation of the transplant conditioning intensity (TCI) index for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

The intensity of the conditioning regimen given before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) can vary substantially. To confirm the ability of the recently developed transplant conditioning intensity (TCI) score to stratify the preparative regimens of allo-HCT, we used an independent and contemporary patient cohort of 4060 transplant recipients with acute myeloid leukemia meeting inclusion criteria from the discovery study (allo-HCT in first complete remission, matched donor), but who were allografted in a more recent period (2018-2021) and were one decade older (55-75 years, median 63.4 years), we assigned them to a TCI category (low n = 1934, 48%; intermediate n = 1948, 48%, high n = 178, 4%) according to the calculated TCI score ([1-2], [2.5-3.5], [4-6], respectively), and examined the validity of the TCI category in predicting early non-relapse mortality (NRM), 2-year NRM and relapse (REL). In the unadjusted comparison, the TCI index provided a significant risk stratification for d100 and d180 NRM, NRM and REL risk. In the multivariate analysis adjusted for significant variables, there was an independent association of TCI with early NRM, NRM and REL. In summary, we confirm in contemporary treated patients that TCI reflects the conditioning regimen related morbidity and anti-leukemic efficacy satisfactorily and across other established prognostic factors.

Busulfan Plus Fludarabine Compared With Busulfan Plus Cyclophosphamide for AML Undergoing HLA-Haploidentical Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Multicenter Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

The busulfan plus fludarabine (BuFlu) conditioning regimen has lower transplant-related mortality (TRM) than busulfan plus cyclophosphamide (BuCy) in HLA-matched transplantation. We aimed to compare outcomes of the BuFlu regimen with those of the BuCy regimen in HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (haplo-HCT).

METHODS

We performed an open-label, randomized phase III trial at 12 hospitals in China. Eligible patients with AML (18-65 years) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BuFlu (busulfan 0.8 mg/kg four times per day on days -6 to -3; fludarabine 30 mg/m2 once daily on days -7 to -3) or BuCy (same dose of busulfan; cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg once daily on days -3 and -2). The primary end point was 1-year TRM in the intention-to-treat population and safety in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02487069) and is complete.

RESULTS

From November 20, 2015, to September 30, 2019, 386 patients were randomly assigned to receive the BuFlu (n = 194) or BuCy (n = 192) regimen. The median follow-up was 55.0 (IQR, 46.5-69.0) months after random assignment. The 1-year TRM was 7.2% (95% CI, 4.1 to 11.4) and 14.1% (95% CI, 9.6 to 19.4; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.97; P = .041), the 5-year relapse was 17.9% (95% CI, 9.6 to 28.3) and 14.2% (95% CI, 9.1 to 20.5; HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.95; P = .670), and the 5-year overall survival was 72.5% (95% CI, 62.2 to 80.4) and 68.2% (95% CI, 58.9 to 75.9; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.26; P = .465) in two groups, respectively. Grade 3 regimen-related toxicity (RRT) was reported for 0 of 191 patients following the BuFlu regimen and 9 (4.7%) of 190 patients following the BuCy regimen (P = .002). At least one type of grade 3-5 adverse event was reported for 130 (68.1%) of the 191 patients and 147 (77.4%) of the 190 patients in two groups, respectively (P = .041).

CONCLUSION

The BuFlu regimen has a lower TRM and RRT and similar relapse for patients with AML undergoing haplo-HCT compared with the BuCy regimen.

Thiotepa-busulfan-fludarabine Compared to Treosulfan-based Conditioning for Haploidentical Transplant With Posttransplant Cyclophosphamide in Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Remission: A Study From the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT

We conducted a registry analysis including adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients in remission who had received thiotepa, busulfan, and fludarabine (TBF) or treosulfan-based (Treo) conditioning for haplo-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) with posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) between 2010 and 2020. A total of 1123 patients met the inclusion criteria (968 received TBF and 155 received Treo). A 1:1 matched-pair analysis was performed on 142 TBF and 142 Treo patients. In the Treo group, 68% of patients received treosulfan at a dose ≥36 g/m2 and 54% of patients received a second alkylator (thiotepa or melphalan). We observed a trend toward increased incidence of grade II-IV acute (a) graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) at 180 days in the TBF group compared with Treo (29% versus 20%; P = 0.08), while incidence of grade III-IV aGVHD was not statistically different. Similarly, the incidence of chronic (c) GVHD was not statistically different in the 2 groups. Incidence of nonrelapse mortality at 2 years was 19% in TBF and 14% in Treo (P = 0.4). Relapse incidence at 2 years was not statistically different in the 2 groups (16% and 18% in TBF and Treo, respectively; P = 0.9). Leukemia-free survival, overall survival, and GVHD-free, relapse-free survival was 65% versus 68% (P = 0.6), 73% versus 76% (P = 0.5), and 54% versus 53% (P = 0.8) in TBF versus Treo, respectively. In conclusion, we did not find a significant difference between the 2 conditioning in the present study; Treo and TBF represent 2 valid alternative regimens for haplo-HSCT with PTCy for AML in remission.