Conditioning with treosulfan and fludarabine for patients with refractory or relapsed non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Fludarabine melphalan versus fludarabine treosulfan for reduced intensity conditioning regimen in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a retrospective analysis

Various reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens are used to decrease toxicity while providing comparable outcomes to myeloablative regimens. We compared toxicity and outcomes between two RIC regimens, fludarabine with melphalan (Flu-Mel) and fludarabine with treosulfan (Flu-Treo), retrospectively over a 10-year period in two donor groups, matched related donor (MRD)/matched unrelated donor (MUD) and haploidentical (Haplo) transplants. The study included 138 patients, of which 105 received MRD/MUD (Flu-Mel: 94, Flu-Treo: 11) and 33 Haplo (Flu-Mel: 17, Flu-Treo: 16) transplants. In the MRD/MUD group, 44 (47%) of patients who received Flu-Mel had grade 3/4 oral mucositis compared to 1 (9%) who received Flu-Treo (P = 0.02). Corresponding numbers in the Haplo group were 7 (41%) and 1 (6%). Grade 3/4 diarrhoea was more frequent with Flu-Mel than Flu-Treo in the Haplo group (41% vs 6%; P = 0.039), but not the MRD/MUD group. Median follow-up time for all patients was 4.8 years. Five-year OS in the MRD/MUD group was 62% with Flu-Mel versus 53% with Flu-Treo (P = 0.0694). Similarly, 5-year OS was 41% with Flu-Mel and 28% with Flu-Treo (P = 0.770) in the Haplo group. Severe mucositis and diarrhoea were significantly less frequent with Flu-Treo than Flu-Mel. Flu-Treo provided comparable outcomes to Flu-Mel in all donor transplants.

Treosulfan plus fludarabine versus TEAM as conditioning treatment before autologous stem cell transplantation for B-cell Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Conditioning with treosulfan and fludarabine (Treo/Flu) has been proven to be feasible and efficient in several types of malignancies before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Given its favorable reduced toxicity profile, we introduced Treo/Flu as conditioning before autologous HSCT (auto-HSCT) in patients with B-cell Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Treo/Flu in comparison to TEAM. Fifty-seven patients with NHL received auto-HSCT after conditioning with either Treo/Flu (n = 22) or TEAM (n = 35). All patients achieved sustained engraftment. PFS, EFS and OS were not significant in both groups. Of note is that patients in the Treo/Flu group were less dependent on thrombocyte transfusions (p = 0.0082), significantly older (in median 11 years, p < 0.0001) and suffered less frequently from infectious complications (p = 0.0105), mucositis and stomatitis (p < 0.0001). This study is the first to present efficacy, feasibility, and safety of conditioning with Treo/Flu preceding auto-HSCT in patients with NHL. Since it demonstrated a lack of significant difference in comparison to TEAM conditioning it might be a valuable alternative especially in elderly patients with B-cell NHL and comorbidities. Further evaluation by prospective clinical trials is warranted.

Acute toxicity and outcome among pediatric allogeneic hematopoietic transplant patients conditioned with treosulfan-based regimens

Treosulfan-based regimens constitute a feasible and increasingly used, but still myeloablative, conditioning in pediatric allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We retrospectively analyzed the acute toxicity and outcome of all consecutive (2004-2015) pediatric HSCT patients prepared for HSCT with treosulfan in a single-center setting. We included HSCTs performed for both nonmalignant (n = 23) and malignant diseases (n = 11). The controls were patients with nonmalignant diseases or hematological malignancies conditioned with cyclophosphamide (Cy)-total body irradiation (TBI)-based (39 patients) or busulfan-based regimens (11 patients). The major toxicities of the treosulfan-based regimens were limited to oral mucosa and skin. 50% of the patients needed IV morphine for severe mucositis compared to 31% in patients conditioned with Cy-TBI (P = 0.02). Other toxicities were rare. The disease-free survival (DFS) of patients transplanted for nonmalignant disorders was 88.9 ± 7.5% at 2 years. The event-free survival (EFS) at 2 years in this small cohort for those with a malignant disease and a treosulfan-based conditioning was 54.5 ± 1.5%. We conclude that a treosulfan-based conditioning regimen gives excellent DFS in pediatric HSCT performed for a nonmalignant disorder but with substantial mucosal toxicity. In a malignant disorder a treosulfan-based regimen looks promising but larger, preferably randomized, studies are needed to prove efficacy.

[Therapeutic effect of CY-fTBI and BMM conditioning regimen in the process of allo-HSCT treating Ⅲ,Ⅳ non-Hodgkin lymphoma: 15 years analysis of single-center]

目的

比较预处理方案Cy-fTBI(环磷酰胺＋分次全身照射)与BMM(白消安＋马法兰＋米托蒽醌)在异基因造血干细胞移植(allo-HSCT)治疗Ⅲ、Ⅳ期非霍奇金淋巴瘤(NHL)疗效上的差异。

方法

对1998年11月至2014年5月接受allo-HSCT治疗的47例Ⅲ、Ⅳ期NHL病例进行回顾性分析，观察比较Cy-fTBI和BMM预处理方案两组患者移植后造血重建时间、急性移植物抗宿主病(aGVHD)和慢性移植物抗宿主病(cGVHD)累积发生率、移植相关死亡率(TRM)、复发率(RR)、无病生存率(DFS)和总体生存率(OS)。

结果

移植后中性粒细胞≥0.5×10⁹/L和血小板计数≥50×10⁹/L的中位时间为17(10~72) d和27(5~98) d; aGVHD发生率为53.19%，Ⅰ~Ⅱ度占42.55%，Ⅲ~Ⅳ度占10.64%；cGVHD发生率为21.28%；中位随访9.7(0.2~149.1)个月，47例患者中21例生存。Cy-fTBI组1、3、5年OS率分别为73.5%、49.3%、40.1%，DFS率分别为71.4%、45.6%、39.3%。BMM组1、3、5年OS率分别为67.8%、32.9%、31.4%，DFS率分别为65.3%、31.1%、30.2%。Cy-fTBI组1、3、5年RR率分别为18.9%、19.5%、35.2%，TRM率分别为23.0%、38.3%、39.2%。BMM组1、3、5年RR分别为27.4%、38.9%、39.2%，TRM率分别为24.5%、46.4%、48.2%，两组在OS、DFS、RR、TRM等指标上差异无统计学意义。

结论

Allo-HSCT是治疗Ⅲ、Ⅳ期NHL的有效手段，但TRM仍相对较高。Cy-fTBI预处理方案与BMM方案相比，减少了TRM、RR，增加了DFS和OS，但差异无统计学意义。