FLAMSA-RIC for Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens are established options for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). However, the efficacy of RIC regimens for patients with high-risk disease is limited. The addition of a fludarabine, amsacrine, and cytarabine (FLAMSA)-sequential conditioning regimen was introduced for patients with high-risk MDS and AML to combine a high anti-leukemic activity with the advantages of RIC. The current systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted with the aim of identifying all cohort studies of patients with AML and/or MDS who received FLAMSA-RIC to determine its efficacy and toxicity. Out of 3044 retrieved articles, 12 published studies with 2395 overall patients (18.1-76.0 years; 96.8% AML and 3.2% MDS; follow-up duration of 0.7-145 months; 50.3% had active AML disease before HSCT) met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. In the pooled analysis, the 1- and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 59.6% (95% confidence interval (CI), 47.9-70.2%) and 40.2% (95% CI, 28.0-53.7%), respectively. The pooled 3-year OS rate of the patients who achieved CR1 or CR2 prior to HSCT was 60.1% (95% CI, 55.1-64.8%) and the percentage of those with relapse or refractory disease was 27.8% (95% CI, 23.3-32.8%). The pooled 3-year leukemia-free survival (LFS) rate was 39.3% (95% CI, 26.4-53.9%). Approximately 29% of the patients suffered from grades 2-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), while 35.6% had chronic GVHD. The pooled 1- and 3-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) rates were 17.9% (95% CI, 16.1-19.8%) and 21.1% (95% CI, 18.8-23.7%), respectively. Our data indicates that the FLAMSA-RIC regimen is an effective and well-tolerated regimen for HSCT in patients with high-risk AML and MDS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".