ArticleTherapeutic advances in hematology2026
Efficacy and safety of Busulfan-Fludarabine versus Busulfan-Cyclophosphamide as a conditioning regimen prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplant in hematologic malignancy patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.
Article in Therapeutic advances in hematology, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conditioning regimen selection significantly impacts the outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with hematologic malignancies. However, comparative evidence between Busulfan-Fludarabine and Busulfan-Cyclophosphamide remains inconclusive. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of Busulfan-Fludarabine versus Busulfan-Cyclophosphamide as conditioning regimens prior to HSCT. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Data sources and methods: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched through October 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing Busulfan-Fludarabine and Busulfan-Cyclophosphamide in HSCT recipients. Primary outcomes included overall survival and acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Eighteen studies (6 randomized controlled trials, 12 cohorts) comprising 2888 patients (1539 received Busulfan-Fludarabine, 1349 received Busulfan-Cyclophosphamide) were included. Busulfan-Fludarabine showed higher 1-year overall survival (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01-1.26), but no significant difference at 2 or 5 years. Grade III-IV acute GVHD was significantly lower with Busulfan-Cyclophosphamide (RR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.21-0.98). Busulfan-Fludarabine resulted in lower 5-year non-relapse mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48-0.83), and significantly reduced pulmonary and gastrointestinal toxicities. Event-free survival favored Busulfan-Fludarabine at 2 and 5 years. No significant differences were found for relapse-related mortality, chronic GVHD, cytomegalovirus infection, or total mortality. Meta-regression identified conditioning regimen and graft source as contributors to 1-year survival variability. Conclusion: Busulfan-Fludarabine offers early survival and toxicity advantages, while Busulfan-Cyclophosphamide may reduce severe acute GVHD. Conditioning regimen selection should consider patient-specific factors. Further prospective trials are needed to guide clinical decisions. Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42025630836.
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.