Treosulfan is a safe and effective alternative to busulfan for conditioning in adult allogeneic HSCT patients: Data from a single center

Abstract

IntroductionType of conditioning regimen impacts the outcome of patients who undergo allogeneic HSCT since graft versus host disease (GVHD), infections, regimen related toxicities (RRT) are important causes of post‐transplant mortality. Despite the RRT profile of busulfan, it is frequently used worldwide. Treosulfan has advantages in terms of dose of administration, lower incidence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and lower neurotoxicity. We retrospectively investigated outcomes of patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT with treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning regimens in our institution.MethodsTreosulfan was administered to 94 patients while 85 patients received busulfan. Our outcomes were RRT, chronic and acute GVHD, relapse related mortality (RRM), non‐relapse mortality, and fungal infection. The clinical follow up data, regarding the primary and secondary endpoints of our study, of the patients who received treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning regimens were statistically analyzed.ResultsThe median follow‐up was 14 months for the treosulfan group while it was 11 months for the busulfan group (p = 0.16). RRT was 11.7% and 7.1% for treosulfan and busulfan respectively. The incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was less frequent in the treosulfan group compared to the busulfan group (15.7% vs. 32.1%) (p < 0.001). The incidence of acute GVHD (Grade 3 or higher) was 32.2% in the treosulfan group while it was 31.6% in the busulfan group. The RRM was 17% in the treosulfan group while it was 34% in the busulfan group. The non‐relapse mortality was 35.5% and 29.4% in the treosulfan group and in the busulfan group respectively (p = 0.962).ConclusionTreosulfan, with a lower RRM, lower chronic GVHD incidence and with a similar RRT profile appears to be a safe alternative to busulfan.