Trial reportBone marrow transplantation2024
Fludarabine-treosulfan versus fludarabine-melphalan or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in older AML or MDS patients - A clinical trial to registry data comparison.
Trial report in Bone marrow transplantation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- GvHD and GRFS in patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing allogeneic HCT with treosulfan-Haematologica · 2026Trial
- Fludarabine combined with treosulfan or total body irradiation as a conditioning therapy before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. A retrospective matched-pair analysis from the ALWP of the EBMT.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Article
- Non-myeloablative versus reduced intensity conditioning for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia patients aged ≥65: a study from the ALWP of EBMT.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Article
- 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
- Intensification of Treosulfan-Fludarabine Conditioning With Thiotepa Exhibited Effectiveness and Tolerability in Older or Comorbid Patients Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant With Active Myeloid Neoplasm: A Real-world Study.Transplantation direct · 2026Article
- Treosulfan-Based Conditioning Regimens for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Other Myeloid Malignancies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in elderly patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: Considerations and challenges.Seminars in hematology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 14 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A randomized study (acronym: MC-FludT.14/L Trial II) demonstrated that fludarabine plus treosulfan (30 g/m²) was an effective and well tolerated conditioning regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). To further evaluate this regimen, all 252 study patients aged 50 to 70 years were compared with similar patients, who underwent allo-HCT after fludarabine/melphalan (140 mg/m²) (FluMel) or busulfan (12.8 mg/kg)/cyclophosphamide (120 mg/kg) (BuCy) regimens and whose data was provided by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry. In 1:1 propensity-score matched-paired analysis (PSA) of AML patients, there was no difference in 2-year-relapse-incidence after FluTreo compared with either FluMel (n = 110, p = 0.28) or BuCy (n = 78, p = 0.98). However, 2-year-non-relapse-mortality (NRM) was lower compared with FluMel (p = 0.019) and BuCy (p < 0.001). Consequently, 2-year-overall-survival (OS) after FluTreo was higher compared with FluMel (p = 0.04) and BuCy (p < 0.001). For MDS patients, no endpoint differences between FluTreo and FluMel (n = 30) were evident, whereas 2-year-OS after FluTreo was higher compared with BuCy (n = 25, p = 0.01) due to lower 2-year-NRM. Multivariate sensitivity analysis confirmed all significant results of PSA. Consequently, FluTreo (30 g/m²) seems to retain efficacy compared with FluMel and BuCy, but is better tolerated by older patients.
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.