Thiotepa-busulfan-fludarabine compared to treosulfan-based conditioning for haploidentical transplant with posttransplant cyclophosphamide in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in remission: a study from the acute leukemia working party of the EBMT

We conducted a registry analysis including adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients in remission who had received thiotepa, busulfan, and fludarabine (TBF) or treosulfan-based (Treo) conditioning for haplo-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) with posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) between 2010 and 2020. A total of 1123 patients met the inclusion criteria (968 received TBF and 155 received Treo). A 1:1 matched-pair analysis was performed on 142 TBF and 142 Treo patients. In the Treo group, 68% of patients received treosulfan at a dose ≥36 g/m2 and 54% of patients received a second alkylator (thiotepa or melphalan). We observed a trend toward increased incidence of grade II–IV acute (a) graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) at 180 days in the TBF group compared with Treo (29% versus 20%; P = 0.08), while incidence of grade III–IV aGVHD was not statistically different. Similarly, the incidence of chronic (c) GVHD was not statistically different in the 2 groups. Incidence of nonrelapse mortality at 2 years was 19% in TBF and 14% in Treo (P = 0.4). Relapse incidence at 2 years was not statistically different in the 2 groups (16% and 18% in TBF and Treo, respectively; P = 0.9). Leukemia-free survival, overall survival, and GVHD-free, relapse-free survival was 65% versus 68% (P = 0.6), 73% versus 76% (P = 0.5), and 54% versus 53% (P = 0.8) in TBF versus Treo, respectively. In conclusion, we did not find a significant difference between the 2 conditioning in the present study; Treo and TBF represent 2 valid alternative regimens for haplo-HSCT with PTCy for AML in remission