我们进行了一项登记分析，包括接受噻替派、白消安和氟达拉滨 (TBF) 或基于三硫丹 (Treo) 调理的成人急性髓系白血病 (AML) 缓解期患者进行单倍体造血干细胞移植 (HSCT) 和移植后环磷酰胺治疗。 2010 年至 2020 年间，共有 1123 名患者符合纳入标准（968 名患者接受 TBF，155 名患者接受 Treo）。对 142 名 TBF 和 142 名 Treo 患者进行了 1:1 配对分析。在Treo组中，68%的患者接受剂量≥36g/m2的曲硫丹，54%的患者接受第二种烷化剂（塞替派或美法仑）。我们观察到，与 Treo 组相比，TBF 组在 180 天时 II-IV 级急性 (a) 移植物抗宿主病 (GVHD) 的发生率有增加的趋势（29% 对比 20%；P = 0.08），而III-IV级aGVHD没有统计学差异。同样，慢性 (c) GVHD 的发生率在两组中没有统计学差异。 TBF 中 2 年非复发死亡率为 19%，Treo 中为 14%（P = 0.4）。两组的 2 年复发率没有统计学差异（TBF 和 Treo 分别为 16% 和 18%；P = 0.9）。无白血病生存率、总生存率以及无 GVHD、无复发生存率分别为 65% 与 68% (P = 0.6)、73% 与 76% (P = 0.5) 以及 54% 与 53% (P = 0.8) ）分别在 TBF 与 Treo 中。总之，我们在本研究中没有发现两种条件作用之间存在显着差异； Treo 和 TBF 代表了单倍体造血干细胞移植 (haplo-HSCT) 和 PTCy 治疗缓解期 AML 的 2 种有效替代方案。版权所有 © 2023 作者。由 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 代表欧洲血液学协会出版。

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.Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the European Hematology Association.