2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2012.02342.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phase II study of dose‐modified busulfan by real‐time targeting in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myeloid malignancy

Abstract: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with targeted oral busulfan (BU) and cyclophosphamide (CY) in a phase II study. Busulfan (1.0 mg/kg) was given initially in six doses. Based on the estimated concentration at steady state after the first dose of BU, subsequent (7th-16th) doses were adjusted to obtain a targeted overall concentration at steady state of 700-900 ng/mL. The primary endpoint was 1-year overall survival (OS). Fifty patients were regist… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A total of 20 were included based on the strict selection criteria outlined and were categorized according to conditioning regimen or GVHD prophylaxis (Tables 3-7). Seven of these studies included regimens that fit with more than 1 of our predefined categories [22][23][24]26,28,30,32] and 2 of these studies [23,26] included regimens that fell under 3 of our categories. Because of the lack of randomized controlled trials focusing on OM as the primary outcome and heterogeneity of scales used to measure OM, a meta-analysis could not be performed; however, pooled analysis indicated significant differences in incidence of OM with respect to different conditioning regimens.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of 20 were included based on the strict selection criteria outlined and were categorized according to conditioning regimen or GVHD prophylaxis (Tables 3-7). Seven of these studies included regimens that fit with more than 1 of our predefined categories [22][23][24]26,28,30,32] and 2 of these studies [23,26] included regimens that fell under 3 of our categories. Because of the lack of randomized controlled trials focusing on OM as the primary outcome and heterogeneity of scales used to measure OM, a meta-analysis could not be performed; however, pooled analysis indicated significant differences in incidence of OM with respect to different conditioning regimens.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Oral mucositis (OM) is among the most common and debilitating toxicities of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) . Depending on the conditioning intensity, graft‐versus‐host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimen, and other factors, OM may be experienced by up to 60%‐100% of transplantation recipients .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main outcomes were the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS, de ned as time from inclusion in the study until death. [29,30]), non-relapse mortality (NRM, the deaths in the absence of persistent relapse [31]), the leukemia-free survival (LFS, the survival in a state of continuous complete remission [32]) and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR, calculated from the date of CR to the rst relapse [33]). If HRs are not available, we calculated them from the available statistics according to Tierney and colleagues [34].…”
Section: Data Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%