ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Busulfan plus fludarabine compared with busulfan plus cyclophosphamide as a conditioning regimen prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with hematologic neoplasms: a meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of pediatric allogeneic transplant outcomes using myeloablative busulfan with cyclophosphamide or fludarabine.Blood advances · 2018Trial
- Busulfan-cyclophosphamide vs fludarabine-busulfan for allogeneic transplant in acute myeloid leukemia.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Pharmacokinetics of fludarabine and its association with clinical outcomes in paediatric haematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients.Bone marrow transplantation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the article is to critically appraise and synthesize available evidence regarding the efficacy and regimen-related toxicity (RRT) of Busulfan plus fludarabine (BuFlu) compared to busulfan plus cyclophosphamide (BuCy) as a conditioning regimen, prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with hematologic neoplasms.
methodsA meta-analysis was attempted on clinical controlled trials (CCTs), randomized or non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs or non-RCTs), comparing BuCy with BuFlu. We did a systematic search of the indexed medical literature using appropriate keywords to identify potentially relevant articles. The primary outcome of interest was efficacy measured by overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS), acute graft-versus-host-disease (aGVHD). Chronic GVHD (extensive) and other toxicity were secondary endpoints. A relative risk or risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each outcome in the meta-analysis.
resultsNine clinical controlled trials were included, of which 4 tries were RCTs involving 584 patients and the other 5 were non-RCTs involving 571 patients. The cumulative incidences of OS, EFS, acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) were not significantly different between the two regimens. The non-relapse mortality was higher in BuCy but non-significant increment (RR=1.48, 95% CI: [0.97-2.26]). Liver related toxicity was significantly higher with BuCy compared to BuFlu (RR=1.90, 95% CI: [1.00-3.61]).
conclusionLiver related toxicity is significantly lesser with BuFlu, but BuFlu regimen has no significant benefits compared with BuCy in OS, EFS, aGVHD. For all this, the weight of evidence favors BuFlu over BuCy as a first choice-conditioning regimen for patients with hematologic neoplasms, especially for people who have poor liver function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26550118PMC4612803W2181039183What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.