4.5 Article

Fludarabine/busulfan versus busulfan/cyclophosphamide as myeloablative conditioning for myelodysplastic syndrome: a propensity score-matched analysis

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 56, 期 12, 页码 3008-3015

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41409-021-01447-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Myeloablative conditioning with Fludarabine/Busulfan (Flu/Bu4) and busulfan/cyclophosphamide (Bu4/Cy) prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) showed similar outcomes in MDS patients, with no patients having a favorable overall survival rate in either group.
Myeloablative conditioning with fludarabine/busulfan (Flu/Bu4) prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is effective for acute myeloid leukemia. However, the effectiveness of Flu/Bu4 for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) remains poorly understood. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed nationwide registry data in Japan from 2006 to 2018 and compared transplant outcomes of adult MDS patients receiving Flu/Bu4 and busulfan/cyclophosphamide (Bu4/Cy) using propensity score (PS) matching. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Among 2,482 MDS patients, 153 patients were assigned each to the Flu/Bu4 and Bu4/Cy groups. The 3-year OS rates were 52.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.8-60.8%) and 49.5% (95% CI, 40.8-57.6%) in the Flu/Bu4 and Bu4/Cy group, respectively (P = 0.548). The 3-year progression-free survival (P = 0.858), the cumulative incidence of relapse (P = 0.536), and cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality (P = 0.684) were not significantly different between the two groups. According to the findings of subgroup analyses, no patient had a favorable OS when using either of the two regimens. In conclusion, although our PS-matched cohort mainly comprised older patients who had a low hematopoietic cell transplantation-comorbidity index and low-risk disease status, Flu/Bu4 could be an alternative to Bu4/Cy for MDS patients prior to allo-HSCT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据