ArticleBone marrow transplantation2021
Fludarabine/busulfan versus busulfan/cyclophosphamide as myeloablative conditioning for myelodysplastic syndrome: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating clinically translatable conditioning for platelet gene therapy in murine hemophilia A with inhibitors.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2024Article
- Lactoferricin B Combined with Antibiotics Exhibits Leukemic Selectivity and Antimicrobial Activity.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.