1. Reduced-Intensity Conditioning with Fludarabine, Melphalan, and Total Body Irradiation for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: The Effect of Increasing Melphalan Dose on Underlying Disease and Toxicity.
- Author
-
Chen GL, Hahn T, Wilding GE, Groman A, Hutson A, Zhang Y, Khan U, Liu H, Ross M, Bambach B, Higman M, Neppalli V, Sait S, Block AW, Wallace PK, Singh AK, and McCarthy PL
- Subjects
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols pharmacology, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Melphalan pharmacology, Middle Aged, Vidarabine pharmacology, Vidarabine therapeutic use, Young Adult, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols therapeutic use, Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation methods, Melphalan therapeutic use, Transplantation Conditioning methods, Transplantation, Homologous methods, Vidarabine analogs & derivatives, Whole-Body Irradiation methods
- Abstract
Disease relapse and toxicity are the shortcomings of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). We hypothesized that adding total body irradiation (TBI) to and decreasing melphalan (Mel) from a base RIC regimen of fludarabine (Flu) and Mel would increase cytoreduction and improve disease control while decreasing toxicity. We performed a phase II trial of Flu 160 mg/m
2 , Mel 50 mg/m2 , and TBI 400 cGy (FluMelTBI-50, n = 61), followed by a second phase II trial of Flu 160 mg/m2 , Mel 75 mg/m2 , and TBI 400cGy (FluMelTBI-75, n = 94) as RIC for alloHCT. Outcomes were compared with a contemporaneous cohort of 162 patients who received Flu 125 mg/m2 and Mel 140 mg/m2 . Eligibility criteria were equivalent for all 3 regimens. All patients were ineligible for myeloablative/intensive conditioning. The median (range) follow-up for all patients was 51 (15 to 103) months. Day 100 donor lymphoid chimerism and transplant-related mortality, neutrophil and platelet engraftment, acute and chronic graft versus host disease incidence, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were equivalent between FluMel, FluMelTBI-50, and FluMelTBI-75. Stomatitis wasdecreased for FluMelTBI versus FluMel (P < .01). PFS for patients not in complete remission on alloHCT was improved for FluMelTBI-75 versus FluMel (P = .03). On multivariate analysis, OS (P = .05) and PFS (P = .05) were significantly improved for FluMelTBI-75 versus FluMel. FluMelTBI-75 is better tolerated than FluMel, with improved survival and disease control., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF