Targeted-dose of busulfan: Higher risk of sinusoidal obstructive syndrome observed with systemic exposure dose above 5000 µMol⸱min. A historically controlled clinical trial

Effects of combined test dose and therapeutic drug monitoring strategy in exposure-directed busulfan

Although exposure-directed busulfan (BU) dosing can improve allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation outcomes, there is still large variability in BU exposure with test dose alone due to changes in BU clearance caused by drug interactions. We conducted a single-arm phase II trial using the combined test dose and therapeutic drug monitoring strategy (PK-guided group) and compared the outcomes with an external historical cohort receiving a fixed-dose (fixed-dose group). The first eight and second eight doses were adjusted based on the area under the blood concentration-time curve (AUC) of the test and first doses, respectively, targeting a total AUC of 82.1 mg·h/L. All patients received either BU and cyclophosphamide conditioning (BU/CY) or fludarabine (FLU)-containing conditioning. The BU clearance at the first dose decreased more in patients receiving FLU than in those receiving BU/CY; however, BU clearance also declined over time in patients who received BU/CY. The simulated total AUC (sAUC) with test dose only was significantly higher in patients who received FLU than in those who received BU/CY, but sAUC with the combined strategy was comparable. The 100-day progression-free survival was 85.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71.9-92.8%), and was not inferior to that in the fixed-dose group. For the FLU-containing regimens, the PK-guided group showed decreased relapse (0.0% vs. 26.9%, p = 0.03), and favorable overall survival (75.1% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.07) at 1 year. The combined strategy effectively controlled the BU exposure close to the target levels, potentially improving efficacy, especially in patients receiving the FLU-containing regimen. Clinical evaluation of efficacy of dose-modified intravenous busulfan in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for hematological malignancy (#UMIN000014077, June 15th, 2014).

Association between busulfan exposure and survival in patients undergoing a CD34+ selected stem cell transplantation

Busulfan is an alkylating drug routinely used in conditioning regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). A myeloablative conditioning regimen, including busulfan, is commonly used in patients undergoing T-cell depletion (TCD) and allo-HCT, but data on optimal busulfan pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure in this setting are limited. Between 2012 and 2019, busulfan PK was performed to target an area under the curve exposure between 55 and 66 mg × h/L over 3 days using a noncompartmental analysis model. We retrospectively re-estimated busulfan exposure following the published population PK (popPK) model (2021) and correlated it with outcomes. To define optimal exposure, univariable models were performed with P splines, wherein hazard ratio (HR) plots were drawn, and thresholds were found graphically as the points at which the confidence interval crossed 1. Cox proportional hazard and competing risk models were used for analyses. 176 patients were included, with a median age of 59 years (range, 2-71). Using the popPK model, the median cumulative busulfan exposure was 63.4 mg × h/L (range, 46.3-90.7). The optimal threshold was at the upper limit of the lowest quartile (59.5 mg × h/L). 5-year overall survival (OS) with busulfan exposure ≥59.5 vs <59.5 mg × h/L was 67% (95% CI, 59-76) vs 40% (95% CI, 53-68), respectively (P = .02), and this association remained in a multivariate analyses (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.29; 0.88; P = .02). In patients undergoing TCD allo-HCT, busulfan exposure is significantly associated with OS. The use of a published popPK model to optimize exposure may significantly improve the OS.

Evaluation of different pharmacokinetically guided IV busulfan exposure ranges on adult patient outcomes after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Conditioning intensity contributes significantly to outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). We evaluated two myeloablative conditioning dosing ranges of intravenous (IV) busulfan (Bu) in combination with fludarabine in 70 patients. In 2015, our practice changed to target busulfan area under the curve (AUC) of ≥ 19.7 mg*h/L. We assessed responses in patients receiving busulfan AUCs of < 19.7 mg*h/L (Low-Bu) and ≥ 19.7 mg*h/L (High-Bu). At 18-month median follow-up, no differences in overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were found between Low-Bu and High-Bu groups (p = 0.35 and p = 0.29, respectively). Relapses occurred in 25.7% of patients. No differences in median time to relapse were noted. Minimal residual disease (MRD)-positive patients had a shorter median OS and RFS than MRD-negative patients. No differences were found in OS and RFS between Low-Bu and High-Bu groups in MRD-positive patients (p = 0.86 and p = 0.83, respectively), or MRD-negative patients (p = 0.56 and p = 0.38, respectively). Non-relapsed mortality (NRM) at 100 days was 3.4% vs. 4.1% in the Low-Bu vs. High-Bu groups. There were no significant differences in the incidence of acute-graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) (71.4% vs. 63.4%) or chronic GVHD (cGVHD) (48.3% vs. 43.9%) between the groups. The cumulative incidence of grades III-IV aGVHD was 24.1% in Low-Bu group and 22.4% in High-Bu group. In conclusion, targeting a busulfan AUC of > 19.7 mg*h/L with fludarabine does not appear to add an advantage in OS and RFS.

Impact of busulfan pharmacokinetics on outcome in adult patients receiving an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

Busulfan (Bu) is widely used in conditioning regimens before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation, with variable metabolism due to interindividual differences of pharmacokinetics (PK). The purpose of this study was to correlate pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes. Lower-AUC, in range-AUC and higher-AUC were defined as ±25% of the targeted Bu-AUC. In 2019, we changed Bu dosing from 4×/day (Bu-4) to 1×/day (Bu-1) for ease of application. AUC-target range was reached in 46% of patients; 40% were in low-AUC and 14% in high-AUC. Among all toxicities, viral and fungal infections were significantly more frequent in high-AUC compared with low-AUC (20% vs. 8%; p = 0.01 and 37% vs. 17%; p = 0.03). Bu-1 showed lower PK values (66% vs. 36% of Bu-4 in low-AUC; p < 0.01) and higher incidence of mucositis (p = 0.02). Long-term outcomes at 2 years showed a higher non-relapse mortality (NRM) (p < 0.01) and higher relative risk of death in the high-AUC group compared to the other groups. Cumulative incidence of relapse and acute/chronic GvHD were not significantly different. The optimal cut-off in Bu-AUC associated with low NRM was 969 µmol/l*min (ROC AUC 0.67, sensitivity 0.86 and specificity 0.47) for Bu-4. In conclusion, low-AUC BU-PK seems of benefit regarding NRM and survival.

Total Body Irradiation Forever? Optimising Chemotherapeutic Options for Irradiation-Free Conditioning for Paediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia

Total-body irradiation (TBI) based conditioning prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is generally regarded as the gold-standard for children >4 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). Retrospective studies in the 1990's suggested better survival with irradiation, confirmed in a small randomised, prospective study in the early 2000's. Most recently, this was reconfirmed by the early results of the large, randomised, international, phase III FORUM study published in 2020. But we know survivors will suffer a multitude of long-term sequelae after TBI, including second malignancies, neurocognitive, endocrine and cardiometabolic effects. The drive to avoid TBI directs us to continue optimising irradiation-free, myeloablative conditioning. In chemotherapy-based conditioning, the dominant myeloablative effect is provided by the alkylating agents, most commonly busulfan or treosulfan. Busulfan with cyclophosphamide is a long-established alternative to TBI-based conditioning in ALL patients. Substituting fludarabine for cyclophosphamide reduces toxicity, but may not be as effective, prompting the addition of a third agent, such as thiotepa, melphalan, and now clofarabine. For busulfan, it's wide pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and narrow therapeutic window is well-known, with widespread use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to individualise dosing and control the cumulative busulfan exposure. The development of first-dose selection algorithms has helped achieve early, accurate busulfan levels within the targeted therapeutic window. In the future, predictive genetic variants, associated with differing busulfan exposures and toxicities, could be employed to further tailor individualised busulfan-based conditioning for ALL patients. Treosulfan-based conditioning leads to comparable outcomes to busulfan-based conditioning in paediatric ALL, without the need for TDM to date. Future PK evaluation and modelling may optimise therapy and improve outcome. More recently, the addition of clofarabine to busulfan/fludarabine has shown encouraging results when compared to TBI-based regimens. The combination shows activity in ALL as well as AML and deserves further evaluation. Like busulfan, optimization of chemotherapy conditioning may be enhanced by understanding not just the PK of clofarabine, fludarabine, treosulfan and other agents, but also the pharmacodynamics and pharmacogenetics, ideally in the context of a single disease such as ALL.