MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417001771 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-109

Superior long-term outcomes with fludarabine and melphalan reduced intensity regimen in older AML/MDS patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation: An analysis of CIBMTR data

2025· article· en· W4417001771 on OpenAlexaff
Piyanuch Kongtim, Andrew J. Portuguese, Soyoung Kim, Andrew C. Peterson, Hany Elmariah, Lori Muffly, Mark Juckett, Michael R. Grunwald, Mariam T. Nawas, Nelli Bejanyan, Tania Jain, Veronika Bachanová, Xia Bi, Ryan J. Stubbins, Wael Saber, Stefan O. Ciurea, Bart L. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFludarabineMelphalanBusulfanRegimenCohortTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Reduced intensity and non-myeloablative (RIC/NMA) conditioning regimens are routinely utilized in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) for older patients with AML/MDS. However, the efficacy of different conditioning regimens remains unclear. Previous work has suggested that the FM100 regimen is associated with improved long-term outcomes vs. more intense conditioning regimens (Ciurea S, et al. Blood 2020). Using a national registry, we compared outcomes across five commonly used fludarabine-based RIC/NMA regimens in a large cohort of older AML/MDS patients undergoing alloHCT. Methods: We included patients aged ≥50 years who were transplanted between 2013 and 2022 and reported to the CIBMTR registry. All included patients underwent their first alloHCT for AML or MDS using one of five fludarabine-based RIC/NMA regimens: fludarabine/melphalan 100 mg/m² (FM100) or 140 mg/m² (FM140), fludarabine with 2 days of busulfan (FB2), fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/2 gy TBI (FCT), or fludarabine/2 gy TBI (FT) with any graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimen. Patients who received haploidentical transplants or ex vivo T cell-depleted grafts were excluded from the analysis. To account for multiple comparisons, the false discovery rate was controlled using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. To reduce treatment allocation bias, outcomes were compared using propensity score inverse probability weighting (PS-IPW). Results: A total of 11,731 patients from 183 centers were analyzed, including FB2 (n=4,571), FM100 (n=1,666), FM140 (n=4,242), FCT (n=786), and FT (n=466). The median age was 66 years (range 50-83). Overall, 55% had HCT-CI > 2, and 51% had KPS < 90%. For the entire cohort, 9% had AML in ≥ 3rd CR or with active disease at transplant, while 9% had MDS with high/very high IPSS-R scores. Donor types included MSD (27%), MUD (60%), MMUD (7%), other related donors (2%), unrelated with unknow matching status (4%). Post-transplant cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis was administered in 15% of cases. With a median follow-up of 60 months, the adjusted 3-year OS was 53% for FM100, 53% for FM140, 48% for FB2, 47% for FCT, and 38% for FT (p < 0.0001). The 3-year GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) was 15%, 19%, 16%, 14%, and 8%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis showed that the FCT regimen was significantly associated with worse early (≤ 6 months) OS (HR 1.58, p = 0.014) and late (> 6 months) OS (HR 1.24, p = 0.011) compared to FB2. Conversely, both FM100 (HR 0.77, p < 0.0001) and FM140 (HR 0.77, p < 0.0001) were associated with better late OS than FB2. Additionally, FM100 and FM140 demonstrated higher OS in pairwise comparisons with FCT and FT regimens (p < 0.0001). Due to a significant interaction between conditioning regimens and transplant year, the disease-free survival (DFS) analysis was stratified into three transplant periods. For patients transplanted between 2019-2022, FM100 (HR 0.70, p < 0.0001), FM140 (HR 0.70, p < 0.0001), and FCT (HR 0.86, p = 0.004) showed improved DFS compared to FB2. Both FM100 and FM140 also exhibited significantly better DFS than FCT and FT, with no notable difference between FM100 and FM140. Similar trends were observed for GRFS, with FM100 and FM140 associated with improved late GRFS compared to other regimens. The survival benefit of FM regimens was primarily driven by significantly lower relapse rates compared to the other regimens, with no significant difference in relapse rates between FM100 and FM140. However, higher early transplant-related mortality (TRM) was noted in FM regimens, though they did not significantly affect TRM beyond 6 months post-transplant. No significant differences were observed in the risk of chronic or grade 2–4 acute GVHD among these groups. PS-IPW analyses demonstrated similar results, with better survival and lower relapse rates for FM regimens compared to all other RIC regimens. Conclusion: This large-scale analysis demonstrates that FM regimens, particularly FM100 and FM140, provide superior long-term survival and significantly lower relapse rates in older AML/MDS patients undergoing alloHCT. PS-IPW analyses confirmed these benefits despite early TRM risks. These results strongly support the adoption of FM regimens as the preferred conditioning approach to optimize outcomes in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→French-language works237,207→