Observational studyBone marrow transplantation2026
Comparison of outcomes of BuCy versus BuCyMel as preparation for allogeneic HSCT in infants with acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission: a multicenter study from the EBMT PDWP.
Observational study in Bone marrow transplantation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an essential treatment component for high-risk paediatric acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), but the choice of the optimal conditioning regimen remains controversial. We compared outcomes of two widely used myeloablative regimens, BuCy (Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide) versus BuCyMel (Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide, Melphalan) in children aged under 2 years undergoing HSCT in 1st complete remission (CR1). This international, registry-based study was conducted by the Paediatric Diseases Working Party (PDWP) of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant (EBMT) and included patients transplanted from 2000-2022. 335 patients, transplanted across 98 centres, were included, 185 (55.2%) patients received BuCy and 150 patients (44.8%) received BuCyMel. BuCyMel was associated with significantly better leukaemia-free survival (LFS) (4 y: 74.8% vs 58.8%, HR 0.52 (95%CI: 0.33-0.82), p = 0.004) and overall survival (OS) (4 y: 77.9% vs 66.2%, HR 0.55 (95%CI: 0.33-0.91), p = 0.02) compared with BuCy, and significantly lower relapse incidence (4 y: 18.1% BuCyMel vs 31.5% BuCy, HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.29-0.87), p = 0.01). Four-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) did not differ between groups. Our results suggest that BuCyMel is a better conditioning regimen compared with BuCy in children aged under 2 years undergoing HSCT for CR1 AML.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41152589What 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.