Is Treosulfan-Based Conditioning Attractive as a Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Regimen in Korea?

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) was not actively performed in elderly acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome patients who are at a high-risk based on hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI). The advent of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens has made HSCT applicable in this population. However, the selection of appropriate conditioning is a major concern for the attending physician. The benefits of combination of treosulfan and fludarabine (Treo/Flu) have been confirmed through many clinical studies. Korean data on treosulfan-based conditioning regimen are scarce. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of allogeneic HSCT using RIC between 13 patients receiving Treo/Flu and 39 receiving busulfan/fludarabine (Bu/Flu). RESULTS: In terms of conditioning-related complications, the frequency of ≥ grade 2 nausea or vomiting was significantly lower and the duration of symptoms was shorter in the Treo/Flu group than in the Bu/Flu group. The incidence of ≥ grade 2 mucositis tended to be lower in the Treo/Flu group. In the analysis of transplant outcomes, all events of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) and ≥ grade 2 acute GVHD occurred more frequently in the Treo/Flu group. The frequency of Epstein-Barr virus reactivation was significantly higher in the Treo/Flu group (53.8% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.037). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 12 months was higher in the Treo/Flu group (30.8% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.035). Significant prognostic factors included disease type, especially secondary AML, disease status and high-risk based on HCT-CI, ≥ grade 2 acute GVHD, and cases requiring ≥ 2 immunosuppressive drugs for treating acute GVHD. In the comparison of survival outcomes according to conditioning regimen, the Bu/Flu group seemed to show better results than the Treo/Flu group (60% vs. 46.2%, P = 0.092 for overall survival; 56.4% vs. 38.5%, P = 0.193 for relapse-free survival). In additional analysis for only HCT-CI high-risk groups, there was no difference in transplant outcomes except that the Treo/Flu group tended to have a higher NRM within one year after transplantation. Survival outcomes of both groups were similar. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that Treo/Flu conditioning may be an alternative to Bu/Flu regimen in elderly patients with high-risk who are not suitable for standard conditioning.