Fractionated busulfan myeloablative conditioning improves survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: A myeloablative conditioning regimen can be safely given to older patients and those with comorbidities without increasing nonrelapse mortality (NRM) by fractionating the dose of intravenous busulfan. How this approach compares in efficacy with traditional, nonfractionated, lower dose regimens is unknown. METHODS: Outcomes were compared in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome who received either myeloablative, fractionated busulfan (f-Bu) dosed to achieve an area under the curve of 20,000 µmol per minute (f-Bu20K) over 2 weeks (n = 84) or a standard, nonfractionated, lower busulfan dose regimen of 16,000 µmol per minute (Bu16K) over 4 days (n = 78). Both groups also received fludarabine 40 mg/m2 intravenously for 4 days. Graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis was tacrolimus and methotrexate. Patients in the Bu16K group who had unrelated donors also received antithymocyte globulin. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Roughly one-half of the patients were aged >65 years, approximately 40% had poor-risk cytogenetics, approximately 40% of those with AML were not in complete remission, and approximately 40% had a comorbidity index >3. At 2 years, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the f-Bu20K group compared with the Bu16K group (45% vs 24%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8; P = .004). This was because of a significant reduction in progression (34% vs 59%, respectively; HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; P = .003) without any increase in NRM (21% vs 15%, respectively; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-3; P = .3), which resulted in improved overall survival (51% vs 31%, respectively; HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: A myeloablative, fractionated busulfan regimen reduces relapse and improves survival without increasing NRM in older patients with AML and myelodysplastic syndrome.

Conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan versus melphalan alone before autologous haemopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that conditioning therapy with busulfan plus melphalan could result in longer progression-free survival compared with melphalan alone in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous haemopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT). We aimed to test this hypothesis in a randomised trial. METHODS: The primary objective of the study was to compare progression-free survival with conditioning of busulfan plus melphalan with melphalan alone in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for cell transplantation, aged 70 years or younger, with at least stable disease, were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment. Patients received either busulfan plus melphalan, with a test dose of busulfan 32 mg/m2 followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days -7, -6, -5, and -4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve (AUC) of 5000 mmol-minute and melphalan 70 mg/m2 per day on days -2 and -1 (total melphalan dose 140 mg/m2), or a melphalan dose of 200 mg/m2 on day -2. Randomisation was performed via a Clinical Trial Conduct Website at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The accrual is complete and final results are presented here. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01413178. FINDINGS: Between Oct 12, 2011, and March 22, 2017, 205 patients were assessed for eligibility and randomly assigned to treatment. The primary analysis of progression-free survival was measured in 202 patients who received treatment: 104 patients in the busulfan plus melphalan group and 98 patients in the melphalan alone group. 90 days after auto-HCT, 102 (98%) of 104 patients given busulfan plus melphalan and 95 (97%) of 98 patients given melphalan alone achieved partial response or better. The median follow-up in the busulfan plus melphalan group was 22·6 months (IQR 15·2-47·1) and 20·2 months (IQR 8·8-46·6) in the melphalan alone group. Median progression-free survival was 64·7 months (32·9-64·7) with busulfan plus melphalan versus 43·5 months (19·9-not estimated) with melphalan alone (hazard ratio 0·53 [95% CI 0·30-0·91]; p=0·022). There were no treatment-related deaths by day 100 in either group. Grade 2-3 mucositis was observed in 77 (74%) of 104 patients in the busulfan plus melphalan group versus 14 (14%) of 98 patients in the melphalan alone group. INTERPRETATION: These findings, if confirmed in other ongoing studies, suggest that busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the conditioning regimen for auto-HCT in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. FUNDING: This study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through MD Anderson's Cancer Center Support Grant (CA016672).