ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Busulfan-cyclophosphamide vs fludarabine-busulfan for allogeneic transplant in acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in Future oncology (London, England), 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.
- Precision myeloablation with TDM-guided busulfan in pediatric primary immunodeficiencies: a real-world study of 28 patients.Translational pediatrics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBusulfan and cyclophosphamide (BuCy) is the standard myeloablative conditioning regimen for patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Fludarabine and busulfan (FluBu) conditioning seems to have similar efficacy with less toxicity. AIMS AND
methodsDescriptive retrospective study conducted on patients with AML who underwent geno-identical allo-HSCT between January 2011 and December 2022. Patients received a myeloablative conditioning with either BuCy2 orFluBu4. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of this regimens.
resultsA total of 113 adult patients were included. Conditioning regimen was BuCy2 in 81% of patients (
conclusionMyeloablative FluBu4 conditioning appeared to achieve clinical outcomes similar to BuCy2 and may be considered as a possible alternative for patients at high risk of NRM.
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.