Dataset Information

Total Body Irradiation or Chemotherapy Conditioning in Childhood ALL: A Multinational, Randomized, Noninferiority Phase III Study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Total body irradiation (TBI) before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is efficacious, but long-term side effects are concerning. We investigated whether preparative combination chemotherapy could replace TBI in such patients.

Patients and methods

FORUM is a randomized, controlled, open-label, international, multicenter, phase III, noninferiority study. Patients ≤ 18 years at diagnosis, 4-21 years at HSCT, in complete remission pre-HSCT, and with an HLA-compatible related or unrelated donor were randomly assigned to myeloablative conditioning with fractionated 12 Gy TBI and etoposide versus fludarabine, thiotepa, and either busulfan or treosulfan. The noninferiority margin was 8%. With 1,000 patients randomly assigned in 5 years, 2-year minimum follow-up, and one-sided alpha of 5%, 80% power was calculated. A futility stopping rule would halt random assignment if chemoconditioning was significantly inferior to TBI (EudraCT: 2012-003032-22; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01949129).

Results

Between April 2013 and December 2018, 543 patients were screened, 417 were randomly assigned, 212 received TBI, and 201 received chemoconditioning. The stopping rule was applied on March 31, 2019. The median follow-up was 2.1 years. In the intention-to-treat population, 2-year overall survival (OS) was significantly higher following TBI (0.91; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.95; P < .0001) versus chemoconditioning (0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.81). Two-year cumulative incidence of relapse and treatment-related mortality were 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.17; P < .0001) and 0.02 (95% CI, < 0.01 to 0.05; P = .0269) following TBI and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.40) and 0.09 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.14) following chemoconditioning, respectively.

Conclusion

Improved OS and lower relapse risk were observed following TBI plus etoposide compared with chemoconditioning. We therefore recommend TBI plus etoposide for patients > 4 years old with high-risk ALL undergoing allogeneic HSCT.

SUBMITTER: Peters C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8078415 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Total-body irradiation (TBI) based conditioning prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is generally regarded as the gold-standard for children >4 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). Retrospective studies in the 1990's suggested better survival with irradiation, confirmed in a small randomised, prospective study in the early 2000's. Most recently, this was reconfirmed by the early results of the large, randomised, international, phase III FORUM study published in 2020. But we know survivors will suffer a multitude of long-term sequelae after TBI, including second malignancies, neurocognitive, endocrine and cardiometabolic effects. The drive to avoid TBI directs us to continue optimising irradiation-free, myeloablative conditioning. In chemotherapy-based conditioning, the dominant myeloablative effect is provided by the alkylating agents, most commonly busulfan or treosulfan. Busulfan with cyclophosphamide is a long-established alternative to TBI-based conditioning in ALL patients. Substituting fludarabine for cyclophosphamide reduces toxicity, but may not be as effective, prompting the addition of a third agent, such as thiotepa, melphalan, and now clofarabine. For busulfan, it's wide pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and narrow therapeutic window is well-known, with widespread use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to individualise dosing and control the cumulative busulfan exposure. The development of first-dose selection algorithms has helped achieve early, accurate busulfan levels within the targeted therapeutic window. In the future, predictive genetic variants, associated with differing busulfan exposures and toxicities, could be employed to further tailor individualised busulfan-based conditioning for ALL patients. Treosulfan-based conditioning leads to comparable outcomes to busulfan-based conditioning in paediatric ALL, without the need for TDM to date. Future PK evaluation and modelling may optimise therapy and improve outcome. More recently, the addition of clofarabine to busulfan/fludarabine has shown encouraging results when compared to TBI-based regimens. The combination shows activity in ALL as well as AML and deserves further evaluation. Like busulfan, optimization of chemotherapy conditioning may be enhanced by understanding not just the PK of clofarabine, fludarabine, treosulfan and other agents, but also the pharmacodynamics and pharmacogenetics, ideally in the context of a single disease such as ALL.