Trial reportHaematologica2026
GvHD and GRFS in patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing allogeneic HCT with treosulfan-
Trial report in Haematologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conditioning for acute myeloid leukemia: looking beyond intensity.Haematologica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common indication for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), yet graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) remains a major post-transplant complication. Conditioning regimens, particularly reduced-intensity approaches, are critical in optimizing outcomes. This subgroup analysis of the phase III MC-FludT.14/L trial compared treosulfan-fludarabine with reduced-intensity busulfan-fludarabine in 352 AML patients (aged 31-70 years) undergoing alloHCT. The primary endpoint was 24-month event-free survival; secondary endpoints included overall survival, GvHD incidence, relapse/progression, and non-relapse mortality. Treosulfan compared to busulfan demonstrated superiority: 24-month event-free survival was 65% vs. 53% (P=0.01), and overall survival was 73% vs. 65%. Event-free survival benefits were consistent across AML risk categories and notably higher in patients with Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Index score >2 (62% vs. 42%, P=0.02). Treosulfan also showed lower non-relapse mortality and relapse rates. GvHD outcomes favored treosulfan, with a significantly lower incidence of extensive chronic GvHD at 24 months (15.1% vs. 28.1%, P=0.01). GvHD-free and relapse-free survival was also improved (53% vs. 40%, P=0.02). The safety profile was more favorable with treosulfan. These findings support treosulfan-fludarabine as a more effective and safer conditioning regimen than busulfan-fludarabine for AML patients undergoing alloHCT, particularly those at higher risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.