Abstract
Conditioning regimens are an important issue determining the outcome of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Altering the administration order of Busulphan (Bu) and Cyclophosphamide (Cy) during conditioning from conventional method of administering Bu followed by Cy had resulted in an improved toxicity profile in few animal and subsequent human studies. However the data substantiating this approach is limited.
We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplant (Allo SCT) with myeloablative conditioning from 2009 to 2013. A total of 40 patient received Allo SCT of which 18 patient received Bu-Cy and 22 patients received Cy-Bu conditioning regimen. The Bu–Cy conditioning regimen consisted of i.v. Bu 0.8 mg/kg administered every 6 h (16 doses) on days −7 to −4, followed by i.v. Cy 60 mg/kg on days −3 and −2. Patients with the Cy–Bu regimen received i.v. Cy 60 mg/kg on days −7 and −6; followed by i.v. Bu 0.8 mg/kg administered every 6 hr (16 doses) on days −5 to −2. GVHD prophylaxis was given with Cyclosporine A and methotrexate. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 (CTCAE) was used for assessment of toxicity. The diagnosis of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) was based on modified Seattle criteria.
Pre-transplant characteristics were comparable in the two cohorts (Table 1a and 1b). Time to platelet engraftment was earlier in the Cy-Bu cohort (21 days vs. 16 days; P=0.008) (Table 2).Treatment related side effects were similar in both the groups except hepatotoxicity which was higher in Bu-Cy as compared to Cy-Bu group (10 (55.16%) vs. 3 (13.64%); p=0.03). There was no significant difference in treatment related mortality (TRM) at day 100; however there was trend towards higher TRM at day 30 in Bu-Cy group (3 vs. none; p=0.083).There was no difference in aGVHD incidence, grade or stage of organ involved between the 2 groups.
As in previous studies hepatotoxicity in the present analysis was found to be less in patients who received Cy-Bu as the conditioning regimen and there was earlier platelet engraftment in this group. These findings suggest Cy-Bu has better toxicity profile than conventional Bu-Cy regimen. However further prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.
Patient Characteristics . | Bu-Cy (n=18) . | Cy-Bu (n=22) . | P value . | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | Male | 15 | 16 | 0.424 |
Age (in yrs) | Median (Range) | 17 (1-50) | 16 (1-48) | |
≤18 | 9 | 13 | ||
≥18 | 9 | 9 | ||
Underlying Disease | AML | 14 | 12 | 0.415 |
ALL | 3 | 4 | ||
CML | 1 | 3 | ||
MDS | 0 | 2 | ||
Primary Myelofibrosis | 0 | 1 | ||
Pre-transplant Remission Status | CR | 11 | 11 | 0.482 |
Performance status (ECOG) | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0.314 |
1 | 9 | 16 | ||
HSCT Comorbidity Index | 0 | 14 | 15 | 0.341 |
1 | 1 | 5 | ||
2 | 2 | 2 | ||
3 | 1 | 0 |
Patient Characteristics . | Bu-Cy (n=18) . | Cy-Bu (n=22) . | P value . | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | Male | 15 | 16 | 0.424 |
Age (in yrs) | Median (Range) | 17 (1-50) | 16 (1-48) | |
≤18 | 9 | 13 | ||
≥18 | 9 | 9 | ||
Underlying Disease | AML | 14 | 12 | 0.415 |
ALL | 3 | 4 | ||
CML | 1 | 3 | ||
MDS | 0 | 2 | ||
Primary Myelofibrosis | 0 | 1 | ||
Pre-transplant Remission Status | CR | 11 | 11 | 0.482 |
Performance status (ECOG) | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0.314 |
1 | 9 | 16 | ||
HSCT Comorbidity Index | 0 | 14 | 15 | 0.341 |
1 | 1 | 5 | ||
2 | 2 | 2 | ||
3 | 1 | 0 |
Transplant characteristics . | Bu-Cy . | Cy-Bu . | P value . | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Time from diagnosis to Transplant | Mean (days) + SD | 548.1 | 675 | 0.567 |
HLA Matching | HLA identical (6/6) | 17 | 21 | 0.884 |
HLA mismatch (5/6) | 1 | 1 | ||
Donor | Matched Sibling | 17 | 16 | 0.884 |
UCB | 1 | 1 | ||
Donor Age | Median(Range) | 20 (0-47) | 16 (0-50) | 0.781 |
Donor Sex | Male | 5 | 14 | 0.034 |
Female | 12 | 8 | ||
Sex mismatch | 12 | 13 | 0.458 | |
Female Donor in Male patient | 11 | 7 | 0.064 | |
Harvest Source | Peripheral Blood (PB) | 15 | 21 | 0.269 |
Bone Marrow (BM) | 2 | 0 | ||
Cord Blood (UCB) | 1 | 1 | ||
CD 34 Count(x106 cells/kg) | Mean+SD | 5.12+2.60 | 5.66+2.37 | 0.499 |
CD 3 Count(x107 cells/kg) | Mean | 25.5 | 17.5 | 0.200 |
Transplant characteristics . | Bu-Cy . | Cy-Bu . | P value . | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Time from diagnosis to Transplant | Mean (days) + SD | 548.1 | 675 | 0.567 |
HLA Matching | HLA identical (6/6) | 17 | 21 | 0.884 |
HLA mismatch (5/6) | 1 | 1 | ||
Donor | Matched Sibling | 17 | 16 | 0.884 |
UCB | 1 | 1 | ||
Donor Age | Median(Range) | 20 (0-47) | 16 (0-50) | 0.781 |
Donor Sex | Male | 5 | 14 | 0.034 |
Female | 12 | 8 | ||
Sex mismatch | 12 | 13 | 0.458 | |
Female Donor in Male patient | 11 | 7 | 0.064 | |
Harvest Source | Peripheral Blood (PB) | 15 | 21 | 0.269 |
Bone Marrow (BM) | 2 | 0 | ||
Cord Blood (UCB) | 1 | 1 | ||
CD 34 Count(x106 cells/kg) | Mean+SD | 5.12+2.60 | 5.66+2.37 | 0.499 |
CD 3 Count(x107 cells/kg) | Mean | 25.5 | 17.5 | 0.200 |
Outcome . | Bu-Cy . | Cy-Bu . | P . |
---|---|---|---|
ANC recovery | 14 (11-30) | 11 (8-32) | 0.119 |
Platelet recovery | 21 (17-44) | 16 (11-27) | 0.008 |
Platelets transfused | 6 (1-10) | 4 (1-15) | 0.166 |
Days of GCSF | 18 (12-36) | 14 (9-37) | 0.126 |
D100 Complete Donor Chimerism | 9 (90%) | 12(85.71%) | 1.000 |
Transplant Response | 15/17 (88.24%) | 19/22 (86.36%) | 1.000 |
Days of Antimicrobial use | 13 (0-34) | 13 (0-36) | 0.83 |
Hepatotoxicity (grade3-4) | 10/18 (55.56%) | 3/22 (13.64%) | 0.030 |
Nephrotoxicity (grade3-4) | 3/18 (16.67%) | 1/22 (4.55%) | 0.204 |
Mucositis (grade3-4) | 6/18 (33.33%) | 6/22 (27.27%) | 0.677 |
Any Grade 3-4 toxicity | 10/18 (55.56%) | 9/22 (40.91%) | 0.356 |
D30 TRM | 3 (16.67%) | 0 | 0.083 |
D100 TRM | 4 (22.22%) | 2 (10%) | 0.395 |
Follow up | 28.67 months | 7.6 months | |
Acute GVHD | 3/18 (16.67%) | 5/22 (22.73%) | 0.709 |
Outcome . | Bu-Cy . | Cy-Bu . | P . |
---|---|---|---|
ANC recovery | 14 (11-30) | 11 (8-32) | 0.119 |
Platelet recovery | 21 (17-44) | 16 (11-27) | 0.008 |
Platelets transfused | 6 (1-10) | 4 (1-15) | 0.166 |
Days of GCSF | 18 (12-36) | 14 (9-37) | 0.126 |
D100 Complete Donor Chimerism | 9 (90%) | 12(85.71%) | 1.000 |
Transplant Response | 15/17 (88.24%) | 19/22 (86.36%) | 1.000 |
Days of Antimicrobial use | 13 (0-34) | 13 (0-36) | 0.83 |
Hepatotoxicity (grade3-4) | 10/18 (55.56%) | 3/22 (13.64%) | 0.030 |
Nephrotoxicity (grade3-4) | 3/18 (16.67%) | 1/22 (4.55%) | 0.204 |
Mucositis (grade3-4) | 6/18 (33.33%) | 6/22 (27.27%) | 0.677 |
Any Grade 3-4 toxicity | 10/18 (55.56%) | 9/22 (40.91%) | 0.356 |
D30 TRM | 3 (16.67%) | 0 | 0.083 |
D100 TRM | 4 (22.22%) | 2 (10%) | 0.395 |
Follow up | 28.67 months | 7.6 months | |
Acute GVHD | 3/18 (16.67%) | 5/22 (22.73%) | 0.709 |
No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Author notes
Asterisk with author names denotes non-ASH members.
This icon denotes a clinically relevant abstract