ArticleBone marrow transplantation2025
Improved post-transplant outcomes for elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients conditioned with FLU/BU4 rather than conventional MAC regimens.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in Japan: changes in practice patterns and outcomes during the past 20 years.International journal of hematology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is uncertain whether FLU/BU4 regimens, classified as myeloablative conditioning (MAC), improve prognosis compared to conventional MAC regimens (conv-MAC) such as CY/TBI and BU/CY. We compared FLU/BU4 with conv-MAC among 6551 patients (FLU/BU4 905, conv-MAC 5646), including acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients aged 16-59 who received a first allogeneic transplantation from the Japanese nationwide registry. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), while secondary endpoints were treatment-related mortality (TRM) and relapse at 3 years. Results indicated comparable OS for conv-MAC regimens among the entire cohort (3-year OS: FLU/BU4 50.4% vs. conv-MAC 55.4%, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis focusing on elderly patients (aged 50-59) indicated that FLU/BU4 showed a statistically significant improvement in OS (47.0% vs. 42.8%, p = 0.036). Notably, for patients in this cohort transplanted at complete remission (CR), FLU/BU4 demonstrated a substantial advantage over conv-MAC with superior OS (HR 0.75, p = 0.046), lower TRM (HR 0.66, p = 0.035), and comparable relapse (HR 0.84, p = 0.390). These benefits were not observed in elderly patients transplanted at non-CR or in other age groups. In summary, our findings suggest that FLU/BU4 regimen, rather than conv-MAC, may be preferable in MAC-tolerant AML patients, aged 50-59 at CR status. This treatment improves survival by reducing TRM without increasing relapse risk.
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.