ArticleInternational journal of hematology2024
Fludarabine melphalan versus fludarabine treosulfan for reduced intensity conditioning regimen in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a retrospective analysis.
Article in International journal of hematology, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world experience of treosulfan in allogeneic stem cell transplantation in adult patients with myeloid malignancies. Spanish Group of SCT and Cell Therapy (GETH-TC).Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Article
- Comparison of fludarabine-melphalan and fludarabine-treosulfan as conditioning prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation-a registry study on behalf of the EBMT Acute Leukemia Working Party.Bone marrow transplantation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens are used to decrease toxicity while providing comparable outcomes to myeloablative regimens. We compared toxicity and outcomes between two RIC regimens, fludarabine with melphalan (Flu-Mel) and fludarabine with treosulfan (Flu-Treo), retrospectively over a 10-year period in two donor groups, matched related donor (MRD)/matched unrelated donor (MUD) and haploidentical (Haplo) transplants. The study included 138 patients, of which 105 received MRD/MUD (Flu-Mel: 94, Flu-Treo: 11) and 33 Haplo (Flu-Mel: 17, Flu-Treo: 16) transplants. In the MRD/MUD group, 44 (47%) of patients who received Flu-Mel had grade 3/4 oral mucositis compared to 1 (9%) who received Flu-Treo (P = 0.02). Corresponding numbers in the Haplo group were 7 (41%) and 1 (6%). Grade 3/4 diarrhoea was more frequent with Flu-Mel than Flu-Treo in the Haplo group (41% vs 6%; P = 0.039), but not the MRD/MUD group. Median follow-up time for all patients was 4.8 years. Five-year OS in the MRD/MUD group was 62% with Flu-Mel versus 53% with Flu-Treo (P = 0.0694). Similarly, 5-year OS was 41% with Flu-Mel and 28% with Flu-Treo (P = 0.770) in the Haplo group. Severe mucositis and diarrhoea were significantly less frequent with Flu-Treo than Flu-Mel. Flu-Treo provided comparable outcomes to Flu-Mel in all donor transplants.
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.