Busulfan plus cyclophosphamide versus busulfan plus fludarabine as a preparative regimen for allogeneic haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: The standard busulfan-cyclophosphamide myeloablative conditioning regimen is associated with substantial non-relapse mortality in patients older than 40 years with acute myeloid leukaemia who are undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. Because the combination of busulfan plus fludarabine has been proposed to reduce non-relapse mortality, we aimed to compare this treatment with busulfan plus cyclophosphamide as a preparative regimen in these patients. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia at 25 hospital transplant centres in Italy and one in Israel. Eligible patients were aged 40-65 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than 3, and were in complete remission. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous busulfan plus cyclophosphamide or busulfan plus fludarabine. Treatment allocations were not masked to investigators or patients. Randomisation was done centrally via a dedicated web-based system using remote data entry, with patients stratified by donor type and complete remission status. Patients allocated to busulfan plus cyclophosphamide received intravenous busulfan 0·8 mg/kg four times per day during 2 h infusions for four consecutive days (16 doses from days -9 through -6; total dose 12·8 mg/kg) and cyclophosphamide at 60 mg/kg per day for two consecutive days (on days -4 and -3; total dose 120 mg/kg). Patients allocated to busulfan plus fludarabine received the same dose of intravenous busulfan (from days -6 through -3) and fludarabine at 40 mg/m(2) per day for four consecutive days (from days -6 through -3; total dose 160 mg/m(2)). The primary endpoint was 1-year non-relapse mortality, which was assessed on an intention-to-treat basis; safety outcomes were assessed in the per-protocol population. This trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191957. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2008, and Dec 20, 2012, we enrolled and randomly assigned 252 patients to receive busulfan plus cyclophosphamide (n=125) or busulfan plus fludarabine (n=127). Median follow-up was 27·5 months (IQR 9·8-44·3). 1-year non-relapse mortality was 17·2% (95% CI 11·6-25·4) in the busulfan plus cyclophosphamide group and 7·9% (4·3-14·3) in the busulfan plus fludarabine group (Gray's test p=0·026). The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher adverse events were gastrointestinal events (28 [23%] of 121 patients in the busulfan plus cyclophosphamide group and 26 [21%] of 124 patients in the busulfan plus fludarabine group) and infections (21 [17%] patients in the busulfan plus cyclophosphamide group and 13 [10%] patients in the busulfan plus fludarabine group had at least one such event). INTERPRETATION: In older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, the myeloablative busulfan plus fludarabine conditioning regimen is associated with lower transplant-related mortality than busulfan plus cyclophosphamide, but retains potent antileukaemic activity. Accordingly, this regimen should be regarded as standard of care during the planning of allogeneic transplants for such patients.