Table 4 Propensity score 1:1 matched-paired analysis of clinical endpoints at 2 years after allogeneic HCT.

From: Fludarabine-treosulfan versus fludarabine-melphalan or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in older AML or MDS patients – A clinical trial to registry data comparison

 

Acute myeloid leukemia

 

Relapse

p value

Non-relapse mortality

p value

Overall survival

p value

FluMel (n = 110)

24.7% (15.8–33.6)

0.28 (0.11)

17.5% (9.6–25.5)

0.019 (0.11)

58.7% (48.3–69.1)

0.04 (0.21)

FluTreo (n = 110)

30.6% (21.9–39.4)

6.4% (1.8–11.0)

72.7% (63.7–80.7)

BuCy (n = 78)

30.3% (18.6–42.0)

0.98 (0.46)

23.5% (13.1–33.9)

<0.001 (0.001)

49.2% (36.4–62.1)

<0.001 (<0.001)

FluTreo (n = 78)

29.1% (18.8–39.4)

3.9% (0.0–8.2)

76.4% (66.8–85.9)

 

Myelodysplastic syndrome

 

Relapse

p value

Non-relapse mortality

p value

Overall survival

p value

FluMel (n = 30)

23.8% (5.1–42.5)

0.50 (0.74)

12.5% (0.0–25.9)

0.72 (0.71)

56.5% (33.9–79.1)

0.57 (0.62)

FluTreo (n = 30)

13.3% (1.2–25.5)

16.7% (3.3–30.0)

70.0% (53.6–86.4)

BuCy (n = 25)

25.8% (1.8–49.9)

0.098 (0.32)

43.1% (17.2–69.0)

0.18 (0.13)

30.5% (6.1–54.9)

0.01 (0.01)

FluTreo (n = 25)

4.0% (0.0–11.7)

24.0% (7.3–40.7)

72.0% (54.4–89.6)

  1. FluMel fludarabine/melphalan, BuCy busulfan/cyclophosphamide, FluTreo fludarabine/treosulfan.
  2. p values for comparisons of relapse incidence and non-relapse mortality were calculated using Gray’s test, p values for comparisons of overall survival were calculated using the log-rank test, all p values in parentheses were calculated using the log-rank test stratified on each matched pair.
Back to article page