Use of busulfan in conditioning for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in adults: a survey by the Transplant Complications Working Party of the EBMT

Busulfan Once versus Four Times daily: Impact on Pharmacokinetics, Organ Toxicities and Survival After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring of busulfan (Bu) used as conditioning for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is recommended as pharmacokinetics (PK) display variability. Since 2019, we give Bu 1x/day (Bu-Q24) instead of 4x/day (Bu-Q6) for practical convenience, despite limited studies evaluating the best way of application.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to analyze the correlation between Bu administration (Bu-Q6 versus Bu-Q24), Bu-PK and clinical outcome in 256 adult patients receiving Bu as conditioning regimen for allo-HSCT.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective study of adult patients receiving a myeloablative chemotherapeutic regimen containing Bu to treat hematological malignancies. The population was separated into two groups according to Bu administration, namely Bu-Q6 and Bu-Q24.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients received Bu-Q6 and 123 Bu-Q24. Bu-Q6 patients were more commonly treated with cyclophosphamide and Bu-Q24 with fludarabin. Bu-Q6 showed lower cumulative area-under-the-curve values than Bu-Q24 (63.78mg*h/L in Bu-Q6 and 70.12mg*h/L in Bu-Q24, p=0.06). Only 44% of the patients fell within the 1st AUC FDA target range in Bu-Q6 versus 62% in Bu-Q24 (p<0.01). Overall, Bu-Q24 appeared to be superior to Bu-Q6 for most outcomes, showing lower incidence of toxicity grade≥II (78% vs. 90%, p=0.02), with less uro-renal (14% in Bu-Q24 vs. 26% in Bu-Q6; p=0.02), pulmonary (2% vs. 8%, p=0.05) and gastro-intestinal toxicities (10% vs. 17%, p<0.01). Patient receiving Bu-Q24 had fewer infections (51% vs. 65%; p=0.04), particularly bacterial (33% vs. 47%, p=0.03) and fungal infections (10% vs. 20%; p=0.03). At 2 years, Bu-Q24 tended to have lower treatment-related mortality (5% vs. 10%, p=0.13), relapse rate (37% vs. 42%, p=0.55) and incidence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease (24% vs. 28%; 32% vs. 36%, respectively). The overall survival was 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74%-89%) in Bu-Q24 and 69% (95% CI 62%-77%, p=0.03) in Bu-Q6, without impact on the relapse rate or incidence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease. The only benefit of Bu-Q6 was mucositis grade≥III, with an incidence of 36% versus 60% in Bu-Q24 (p<0.01). At 2 years, patients with a cumulative AUC < 59.11 mg*h/L had the lowest TRM, without impact on the OS. Bu clearance was largely influenced by BMI and age > 60 years.

CONCLUSION

Bu administered once a day shows benefit both in the short and long term compared to Bu administered four times a day, but data are heterogeneus, Bu-Q24 being more commonly associated with use of fludarabine, Bu-Q6 with use of cyclophosphamide in this study.

A practical guide to therapeutic drug monitoring in busulfan: recommendations from the Pharmacist Committee of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT)

Busulfan (Bu) is an important component of many conditioning regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. The therapeutic window of Bu is well characterized, with strong associations between Bu exposure and the clinical outcome in adults (strongest evidence in myelo-ablative setting) and children (all settings). We provide an overview of the literature on Bu as well as a step-by-step guide to the implementation of Bu therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The guide covers the clinical, pharmacological, laboratory and administrative aspects of the procedure. Through this document, we aim to support centers in implementing TDM for Bu to further enhance the success rates of HCT and improve patient outcomes. The Pharmacist Committee of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) encourages all centers to perform TDM for Bu in the aforementioned indications.

Importance of Sex-Dependent Differences for Dosing Selection and Optimization of Chemotherapeutic Drugs

BACKGROUND

Despite major advances in cancer treatment in the past years, there is a need to optimize chemotherapeutic drug dosing strategies to reduce toxicities, suboptimal responses, and the risk of relapse. Most cancer drugs have a narrow therapeutic index with substantial pharmacokinetics variability. Yet, current dosing approaches do not fully account for the complex pathophysiological characteristics of the patients. In this regard, the effect of sex on anticancer chemotherapeutic drugs' disposition is still underexplored. In this article, we review sex differences in chemotherapeutic drug pharmacokinetics; we suggest a novel approach that integrates sex into the traditional a priori body surface area (BSA) dosing selection model, and finally, we provide an overview of the potential benefits of a broader use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in oncology.

SUMMARY

To date, anticancer chemotherapeutic drug dosing is most often determined by BSA, a method widely used for its ease of practice, despite criticism for not accounting for individual factors, notably sex. Anatomical, physiological, and biological differences between males and females can affect pharmacokinetics, including drug metabolism and clearance. At equivalent doses, females tend to display higher circulating exposure and more organ toxicities, which has been formally demonstrated at present for about 20% of chemotherapeutic drugs. An alternative could be the sex-adjusted BSA (SABSA), incorporating a 10% increase in dosing for males and a 10% decrease for females, though this approach still lacks formal clinical validation. Another strategy to reduce treatment-related toxicity and potentially enhance clinical outcomes could be a more widespread use of TDM, for which a benefit has been demonstrated for 5-fluorouracil, busulfan, methotrexate, or thiopurines.

KEY MESSAGES

The inclusion of sex besides BSA in an easy-to-implement formula such as SABSA could improve a priori chemotherapy dosing selection, even though it still requires clinical validation. The a posteriori use of TDM could further enhance treatment efficacy and safety in oncology.

Busulfan Exposure Target Attainment in Adults Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Single Day Versus a Multiple Day Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Regimen

Busulfan exposure has previously been linked to clinical outcomes, hence the need for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Study objective was to evaluate the effect of day 1 TDM-guided dosing (regimen d1) versus days 1 + 2 TDM-guided dosing (regimen d1 + 2) on attaining adequate busulfan exposure. In this observational study, we included all adults who received an allogeneic HCT with intravenous once daily busulfan over 4 days as part of the conditioning regimen at the University Medical Centre Utrecht or between July 31, 2014 and November 12, 2021. The primary outcome was attainment of the therapeutic busulfan target (cumulative area under the curve [AUCcum] 80-100 mg*h/L). Dose adjustment was based on the estimated AUC of the preceding dosing day(s). Additional TDM was performed in the event of large dose adjustments (≥25%). The choice of TDM regimen was solely based on the first day the busulfan dose was administered (regimen d1 + 2 occurred when conditioning started on a Saturday). In all patients, blood sampling was performed on day 4 for evaluation. The AUCcum was estimated using a validated population pharmacokinetic model. Busulfan target exposure was compared between both TDM regimen groups using a propensity score adjusted logistic regression model. The variance in the AUCcum between the TDM regimens was compared using the F-test. Patients were stratified for age (categorical). In regimen d1, 87.6% (n = 113/129) attained a therapeutic busulfan exposure, while in regimen d1 + 2 a proportion of 97.4% was found (n = 74/76, adjusted odds ratio for non-therapeutic AUC = 0.19, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.04-0.89). Variance of busulfan exposure in the regimen d1 group (SD = 6.8 mg*h/L) differed significantly from the variance in the regimen d1 + 2 group (SD = 3.6 mg*h/L, F-test, P < .001). Performing busulfan TDM on both day 1 and day 2, rather than only on day 1, improves busulfan target exposure attainment in adults undergoing HCT, provided that subsequent TDM is carried out if required.

Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Simulation with Pharmacogenetic Insights Support the Relevance of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Myeloablative Busulfan Dosing in Adult HSCT

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of busulfan (Bu) is well-established in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but its use in adults is limited due to a lack of clear recommendations and scarcity of evidence regarding its utility. GSTA1 promoter variants are reported to affect Bu clearance in both adults and pediatric patients. This study aimed to evaluate the value of preemptive genotyping GSTA1 and body composition (obesity) in individualizing Bu dosing in adults, through pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling and simulations. A population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model was developed and validated with data from 60 adults who underwent HSCT. Simulations assessed different dosing scenarios based on body size metrics and GSTA1 genotypes. Due to the limited number of obese patients in the cohort, the effect of obesity on Bu pharmacokinetics (PK) was evaluated in silico using a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model and relevant virtual populations from Simcyp software. Patients with at least 1 GSTA1*B haplotype had 17% lower clearance on average. PopPK simulations indicated that adjusting doses based on genotype increased the probability of achieving the target exposure (3.7 to 5.5 mg.h/L) from 53% to 60 % in GSTA1*A homozygous patients, and from 50% to 61% in *B carriers. Still, Approximately 40% of patients would not achieve this therapeutic window without TDM. A 2-sample optimal design was validated for routine model-based Bu first dose AUC0-∞ estimation, and the model was implemented in the Tucuxi user-friendly TDM software. PBPK simulations confirmed body surface area-based doses of 29 to 31 mg/m2/6h as the most appropriate, regardless of obesity status. This study emphasizes the importance of individualized Bu dosing strategies in adults to achieve therapeutic targets. Preemptive genotyping alone may not have a significant clinical impact, and routine TDM may be necessary for optimal transplantation outcomes.

Busulfan target exposure attainment in children undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a single day versus a multiday therapeutic drug monitoring regimen

Busulfan exposure has previously been linked to clinical outcomes, hence the need for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Study objective was to evaluate the effect of day 1 TDM-guided dosing (regimen d1) versus days 1 + 2 TDM-guided dosing (regimen d1 + 2) on attaining adequate busulfan exposure. In this observational study, we included all children receiving busulfan-based allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients achieving busulfan target attainment in both TDM regimens. Secondary outcomes were the variance in busulfan exposure and day-4 clearance (Clday4) estimates between both TDM regimens and dosing day 1 and 2. In regimen d1, 84.3% (n = 91/108) attained a therapeutic busulfan exposure, while in regimen d1 + 2 a proportion of 90.9% was found (n = 30/33, not-significant). Variance of Clday4 estimate based on busulfan day 2 concentrations was significantly smaller than the variance of Clday4 estimates based on day 1 concentrations (p < 0.001). Therefore, day 1-guided TDM (pharmacometric model-based) of busulfan may be sufficient for attaining optimal target exposure, provided that subsequent TDM is carried out if required. However, performing TDM on subsequent days may be beneficial, as measurements on day 2 seemed to reduce the variance in the estimated clearance as compared to day 1 sampling.

Effect of pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics in adults with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation conditioned with Busulfan

Busulfan (Bu) combined with cyclophosphamide (Cy) is commonly used as a myeloablative conditioning regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). There is inter-individual variability of Bu pharmacokinetics (PK) and hence in toxicity and efficacy. The introduction of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of Bu has decreased toxicity of the regimen. Hepatic metabolism of Bu is mediated through Glutathione-S-Transferases (GSTs), mainly GSTA1. Patients with GSTA1*A variants are considered normal metabolizers and GSTA1*B corresponds to poor metabolism, defined by nucleotide changes at -52 or -69 locus in GSTA1 promoter region. The aim of the study was to explore the correlation between GSTA1 polymorphisms and Bu-PK in 60 adult patients receiving an allo-HCT in the BuCyBu clinical study (ClinicalTrials.gov I, ID NCT01779882) comparing the sequence BuCy to CyBu. DNA samples prior to conditioning were genotyped for candidate variants at -52 (rs3957356) and -69 (rs3957357) loci in the GSTA1 promoter. Thirty-three % of patients were GSTA1*A*A, 49% GSTA1*A*B and 18% GSTA1*B*B. In GSTA1*A*A patients, median Bu-AUC was 3.6 ± 0.7 mg*h/L, in GSTA1*A*B 4.5 ± 1.6 and in GSTA1*B*B 4.9 ± 1.4 (AUC 35% higher than GSTA1*A*A, p = 0.03), with a similar significant correlation with Bu-clearance (p = 0.04). The correlation between GSTA1 polymorphism and AUC remained significant in multivariate linear regression analysis. There was a trend for lower non-relapse mortality (NRM) in patients with low AUC. We could not demonstrate a correlation between GSTA1 polymorphisms and NRM, acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) in this small cohort, but there is a trend of higher aGvHD incidence in GSTA1*B*B patients.

Implementation and Cross-Validation of a Pharmacokinetic Model for Precision Dosing of Busulfan in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplanted Children

Busulfan, a drug used in conditioning prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in children, has a narrow therapeutic margin. The model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) of busulfan is desirable, but there is a lack of validated tools. The objective of this study was to implement and cross-validate a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model in the Tucuxi software for busulfan MIPD in HSCT children. A search of the literature was performed to identify candidate population PK models. The goodness of fit of three selected models was assessed in a dataset of 178 children by computing the mean error (ME) and root-mean-squared error of prediction (RMSE). The best model was implemented in Tucuxi. The individual predicted concentrations, the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), and dosage requirements were compared between the Tucuxi model and a reference model available in the BestDose software in a subset of 61 children. The model from Paci et al. best fitted the data in the full dataset. In a subset of 61 patients, the predictive performance of Tucuxi and BestDose models was comparable with ME values of 6.4% and -2.5% and RMSE values of 11.4% and 13.6%, respectively. The agreement between the estimated AUC and the predicted dose was good, with 6.6% and 4.9% of the values being out of the 95% limits of agreement, respectively. To conclude, a PK model for busulfan MIPD was cross-validated and is now available in the Tucuxi software.

Decreased Systemic Busulfan Exposure After Oral Dosing With Concomitant Levetiracetam Compared With Phenytoin

BACKGROUND

Busulfan (Bu) conditioning used in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation may induce seizures, and prophylactic antiepileptic treatment is recommended. Following updated guidelines, in August 2019, the adult hematopoietic stem cell transplantation department of the Rambam Health Care Campus (Haifa, Israel) switched the antiepileptic prophylaxis protocol from phenytoin to oral levetiracetam during oral Bu conditioning. The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic parameters of Bu after oral dosing between patients receiving phenytoin and those receiving levetiracetam prophylaxis.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective cohort study in adults undergoing myoablative conditioning with oral Bu between August 2018 and August 2020. Bu pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC0-6, C0, Cmax, and Tmax) were compared in patients treated with phenytoin comedication (during the year before the change in policy) and levetiracetam comedication (during the year after the change). Potential confounders were accounted for including age, azole comedication, and body weight.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical parameters or weight-corrected Bu dose between the phenytoin group (n = 28) and the levetiracetam group (n = 25). There was no difference in the rate of voriconazole comedication, but fluconazole was more common in the phenytoin group (P = 0.026). The median AUC0-6 was significantly lower in the levetiracetam group (949 μM*min; IQR = 806 to 1101 μM*min) than in the phenytoin group (1208 μM*min; IQR = 1087 to 1389 μM*min; P < 0.001). This is a clinically significant difference of 258 μM*min (21%). Azole use was not associated with Bu exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that, after treatment with oral Bu, oral levetiracetam comedication is associated with reduced systemic exposure compared with phenytoin comedication, possibly because of decreased bioavailability.

Iron Chelation With Deferasirox Increases Busulfan AUC During Conditioning Chemotherapy Prior to Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

The negative effects of iron overload caused by repetitive blood transfusions and iron release during cytotoxic chemotherapy might be ameliorated by early treatment with an iron chelator. However, in the setting of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), chelation therapy is often postponed until the late post-transplantation period because of potential drug interactions. We wanted to systematically investigate the influence of iron chelation with deferasirox on the pharmacokinetics of intravenous busulfan in adult patients in the context of routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) before HSCT. We conducted a single-center, prospective, observational study in 25 adult patients with planned allogeneic HSCT after myeloablative, busulfan-based, TDM-guided conditioning chemotherapy. Busulfan was administered intravenously over 3 hours with an initial dose of 3.2 mg/kg once daily (based on adjusted ideal body weight [AIBW] in overweight patients). Four consecutive dosages were planned to achieve a cumulative area under the curve (AUC) of 80 mg · h/L. Patients received deferasirox for transfusional iron overload as per approval from the start of conditioning until day 3 after transplantation. Model-based calculation of the busulfan AUC was carried out by means of Bayesian prediction based on a population pharmacokinetic model after the first or second dose of busulfan, and dose adjustments were performed accordingly. Calculated median cumulative AUC before dose adjustment was 93.7 mg · h/L (65.1-151.4 mg · h/L), which was considerably above the target AUC of 80 mg · h/L ± 10%. Median dose adjustment was -17.1% (-50.0% to 18.2%), and patients ultimately received busulfan with a median cumulative dose of 10.60 mg/kg (6.38-15.62 mg/kg). A busulfan dose reduction was necessary in 19 patients (76%) whereas a dose increase was only necessary in 1 patient. After dose adjustment the median AUC was 79.7 mg/L · h (62.5 - 84.2 mg/L · h). Median busulfan clearance was 0.134 L/h/kg (0.084-0.203 L/h/kg), which is significantly lower than the average clearance of 0.2 L/h/kg reported in the literature, whereas volume of distribution was not altered. We were able to demonstrate, that TDM is the key point to facilitate a safe co-administration of both medications, because the intake of deferasirox leads to a considerable increase in the busulfan AUC of about 35% to 40%. The reason for the increase in busulfan AUC is a reduction in busulfan clearance by about one third; therefore a lower initial dose of busulfan followed by TDM could be considered in this case.

Evaluation of the Robustness of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Coupled with Bayesian Forecasting of Busulfan with Regard to Inaccurate Documentation

Background

Inaccurate documentation of sampling and infusion times is a potential source of error in personalizing busulfan doses using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Planned times rather than the actual times for sampling and infusion time are often documented.

Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the robustness of a limited sampling TDM of busulfan with regard to inaccurate documentation.

Methods

A pharmacometric analysis was conducted in NONMEM® 7.4.3 and “R” by performing stochastic simulation and estimation with four, two and one sample(s) per patient on the basis of a one-compartment- (1CMT) and two-compartment (2CMT) population pharmacokinetic model. The dosing regimens consisted of i.v. busulfan (0.8 mg/kg) every 6 h (Q6H) or 3.2 mg/kg every 24 h (Q24H) with a 2 h- and 3 h infusion time, respectively. The relative prediction error (rPE) and relative root-mean-square error (rRmse) were calculated in order to determine the accuracy and precision of the individual AUC estimation.

Results

A noticeable impact on the estimated AUC based on a 1CMT-model was only observed if uncertain documentation reached ± 30 min (1.60% for Q24H and 2.19% for Q6H). Calculated rPEs and rRmse for Q6H indicate a slightly lower level of accuracy and precision when compared to Q24H. Spread of rPE’s and rRmse for the 2CMT-model were wider and higher compared to estimations based on a 1CMT-model.

Conclusions

The estimated AUC was not affected substantially by inaccurate documentation of sampling and infusion time. The calculated rPEs and rRmses of estimated AUC indicate robustness and reliability for TDM of busulfan, even in presence of erroneous records.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11095-021-03115-8.

The role of small molecules in cell and gene therapy

Cell and gene therapies have achieved impressive results in the treatment of rare genetic diseases using gene corrected stem cells and haematological cancers using chimeric antigen receptor T cells. However, these two fields face significant challenges such as demonstrating long-term efficacy and safety, and achieving cost-effective, scalable manufacturing processes. The use of small molecules is a key approach to overcome these barriers and can benefit cell and gene therapies at multiple stages of their lifecycle. For example, small molecules can be used to optimise viral vector production during manufacturing or used in the clinic to enhance the resistance of T cell therapies to the immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment. Here, we review current uses of small molecules in cell and gene therapy and highlight opportunities for medicinal chemists to further consolidate the success of cell and gene therapies.

NRF2 -617 C/A Polymorphism Impacts Proinflammatory Cytokine Levels, Survival, and Transplant-Related Mortality After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Adult Patients Receiving Busulfan-Based Conditioning Regimens

Busulfan (BU) is widely used in conditioning regimens prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The exposure-escalated BU directed by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is extremely necessary for the patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies in order to diminish relapse, but it increases the risk of drug-induced toxicity. BU exposure, involved in the glutathione- (GSH-) glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) pathway and proinflammatory response, is associated with clinical outcomes after HSCT. However, the expression of genes in the GSH-GSTs pathway is regulated by NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) that can also alleviate inflammation. In this study, we evaluated the influence of NRF2 polymorphisms on BU exposure, proinflammatory cytokine levels, and clinical outcomes in HSCT patients. A total of 87 Chinese adult patients receiving twice-daily intravenous BU were enrolled. Compared with the patients carrying wild genotypes, those with NRF2 -617 CA/AA genotypes showed higher plasma interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α levels, poorer overall survival (OS; RR = 3.91), and increased transplant-related mortality (TRM; HR = 4.17). High BU exposure [area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) > 9.27 mg/L × h)] was related to BU toxicities. Furthermore, NRF2 -617 CA/AA genotypes could significantly impact TRM (HR = 4.04; p = 0.0142) and OS (HR = 3.69; p = 0.0272) in the patients with high BU AUC. In vitro, we found that high exposure of endothelial cell (EC) to BU, in the absence of Nrf2, elicited the hyperstimulation of NF-κB-p65, accompanied with the elevated secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, and led to EC death. These results showed that NRF2 -617 CA/AA genotypes, correlated with high proinflammatory cytokine levels, could predict inferior outcomes in HSCT patients with high BU AUC. Thus, NRF2 -617 CA/AA genotyping combined with TDM would further optimize personalized BU dosing for sufficient efficacy and safety endpoint.

Busulfan-cyclophosphamide versus cyclophosphamide-busulfan as conditioning regimen before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a prospective randomized trial

Busulfan and cyclophosphamide (BuCy) is a frequently used myeloablative conditioning regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Theoretical considerations and pharmacological data indicate that application of busulfan prior to subsequent cyclophosphamide (BuCy) may trigger liver toxicity. Reversing the order of application to cyclophosphamide-busulfan (CyBu) might be preferable, a hypothesis supported by animal data and retrospective studies. We performed a prospective randomized trial to determine impact of order of application of Bu and Cy before allo-HCT in 70 patients with hematological malignancy, 33 patients received BuCy and 37 CyBu for conditioning. In the short term, there were minimal differences in liver toxicity favoring CyBu over BuCy, significant only for alanine amino transferase at day 30 (p = 0.03). With longer follow-up at 4 years, non-relapse mortality (6% versus 27%, p = 0.05) was lower and survival (63% versus 43%, p = 0.06) was higher with CyBu compared to BuCy. Other outcomes, such as engraftment (p = 0.21), acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (p = 0.40; 0.36), and relapse (p = 0.79), were similar in both groups. We prospectively show evidence that the order of application of Cy and Bu in myeloablative conditioning in allo-HCT patients has impact on outcome.

Obesity is correlated with poor outcome after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with acute leukemia

OBJECTIVE

The relationship between body mass index and overall survival has been controversial in patients who suffered from hematological malignancies and underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

We collected the data of 686 acute leukemia patients who received only one allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in our center from 2008 to 2017. Patients were divided into four groups (underweight, normal weight, overweight and obesity) according to their body mass index pre-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

RESULTS

56.4% of patients had normal body mass indices, 17.3% were underweight, 20.4% were overweight and 5.8% were with obesity. Concerning long-term follow-up, the probability of overall survival was significantly lower in overweight (P = 0.010) and patients with obesity (P = 0.065) as compared with normal weight patients, and no statistically significant difference between underweight and normal weight individuals (P = 0.810). The results demonstrated that higher body mass index was associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.79; 95% confidence interval: 1.33-2.40, P < 0.001) and shorter leukemia-free survival (hazard ratio: 1.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.35-2.34, P < 0.001). Additionally, patients exhibiting a higher body mass index were more likely to face the problem of relapse (30.6 vs 20.9%, P < 0.001). Furthermore, non-relapse mortality of patients with obesity was statistically higher than normal weight patients (22.5 vs 9.6%, P = 0.027). Besides, individuals with a higher abdominal girth had shorter survival (hazard ratio: 1.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.29-2.31, P < 0.001) and higher relapse rate (hazard ratio: 1.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.29-2.45, P = 0.001) as compared with those with a lower abdominal girth.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that obesity at pre-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation stage, whether characterized by higher body mass index or abdominal girth, is correlated with poorer outcome.