Safety and Efficacy of High-Dose Chemotherapy with TreoMel 200 vs. TreoMel 140 in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Abstract

(1) Background: Treosulfan and melphalan (TreoMel)-based high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) has shown promising safety and efficacy as a conditioning regimen for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, despite intensive first-line induction treatment and upfront consolidation with HDCT and ASCT, AML relapse rates are still high, and further efforts are needed to improve patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare two melphalan dose schedules in regard to the safety of TreoMel HDCT and patient outcomes. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the safety and efficacy of two melphalan dose schedules combined with standard-dose treosulfan in AML patients undergoing HDCT and ASCT at the University Hospital of Bern, Switzerland, between August 2019 and August 2023. Patients received treosulfan 42 g/m2 combined with either melphalan 140 mg/m2 (TreoMel 140) or melphalan 200 mg/m2 (TreoMel 200). Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), as well as safety profile. (3) Results: We included a total of 51 AML patients: 31 (60.8%) received TreoMel 140 and 20 (39.2%) TreoMel 200. The patients’ basal characteristics were comparable between both cohorts. No significant differences in the duration of hospitalization or the adverse event profile were identified. There were no statistically significant differences in relapse (0.45 vs. 0.30, p = 0.381) and mortality rates (0.42 vs. 0.15, p = 0.064) between the melphalan 140 mg/m2 and 200 mg/m2 cohorts, nor for PFS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.29–2.28, p = 0.70) or OS (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.19–2.57, p = 0.59) for the TreoMel 140 vs. TreoMel 200 cohort. (4) Conclusions: A higher dose of melphalan (TreoMel 200) was well tolerated overall. No statistically significant differences for patient outcomes could be observed, possibly due to the relatively small patient cohort and the short follow-up. A longer follow-up and prospective randomized studies would be required to confirm the safety profile and clinical benefit.