Busulfan versus treosulfan conditioning for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

e19032 Background: Busulfan containing myeloablative conditioning regimens are widely used before allogeneic hematological stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Treosulfan-based conditioning regimens are a potential alternative with potent myelotoxic immunosuppressive characteristics and favorable extramedullary toxicity profile compared to busulfan. In order to determine the optimal conditioning regimen, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of busulfan and treosulfan based conditioning regimens in patients with AML/MDS. Methods: A retrospective systematic literature search was undertaken on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Clinicaltrials.gov, using MeSH terms and relevant keywords for AML, MDS, busulfan and treosulfan, to retrieve studies published prior to February 5, 2023. Efficacy outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and relapse. Safety outcomes included non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) graft-versus-host disease (GvHD). The random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous variables in Revman version 5.4. Results: The initial search retrieved 1094 articles. After removal of duplicates, reviews and non-relevant articles, data was extracted from seven different studies. Busulfan and treosulfan were employed in 4706 and 1979 patients, respectively. The median age ranged from 55 to 61 years, and the median follow-up ranged from 14 to 58 months. The treosulfan and busulfan doses administered ranged from 10-42 g/m2 and 0.8-12.8 mg/kg, respectively. Treosulfan was superior to busulfan in terms of OS (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.15-1.68, p-value 0.0007, I2 58%), DFS (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.75, p-value 0.006, I2 60%) and NRM (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.00, p-value 0.05, I2 67%). The two regimens were comparable in terms of relapse (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89-1.04, p-value 0.33, I2 76%), aGvHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65-1.54, p-value 1.00, I2 94%) and cGvHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95-1.05, p-value 0.92, I2 0%). Conclusions: Treosulfan was superior in terms of OS, EFS and NRM, whereas both regimens were comparable in terms of relapse, aGvHD and cGvHD. Treosulfan may be more favorable compared to busulfan as conditioning in AML/MDS. Large scale prospective studies are needed to confirm the most suitable option.