Next Article in Journal
Recent Developments in Differentiation Therapy of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Next Article in Special Issue
Lenalidomide Efficacy in Patients with MDS and Del-5q: Real-World Data from the Hellenic (Greek) National Myelodysplastic & Hypoplastic Syndromes Registry (EAKMYS)
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Venetoclax Treatment Schedule on Hematologic Recovery and Treatment Response in AML Patients Unfit for Intensive Chemotherapy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 17
Issue 7
10.3390/cancers17071140
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study of Myeloablative Fludarabine/Busulfan and Fludarabine/Busulfan/Total Body Irradiation Conditioning in Myeloid Diseases

by
Hyung C. Suh
1,*,
Scott D. Rowley
1,2,
Sukhdeep Kaur
1,
Brittany Lukasik
1,
Phyllis McKiernan
1,
Michele Boonstra
1,
Melissa Baker
1,
Mary DiLorenzo
3,
Alan Skarbnik
3,
Jason Voss
1,
Alexandra Hampson
1,
Bianca DeAgresta
1,
Brighid Boylan
4,
Themba Nyirenda
5,
David H. Vesole
1,2 and
Michele L. Donato
1
1
John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ 07601, USA
2
MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA
3
Novant Health, Charlotte, NC 28204, USA
4
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Hackensack, NJ 07601, USA
5
Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ 07601, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2025, 17(7), 1140; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17071140
Submission received: 7 March 2025 / Revised: 25 March 2025 / Accepted: 26 March 2025 / Published: 28 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Study on Acute Myeloid Leukemia)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation can cure myeloid diseases, such as acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but relapse after transplant can be fatal. Myeloablative conditioning regimens, such as fludarabine/busulfan (Flu/Bu), can help reduce the risk of relapse. Previous retrospective studies have shown that adding total body irradiation (TBI) to conditioning with Flu/Bu in acute leukemia can help reduce recurrence. This prospective, randomized study sought to confirm these findings by comparing two conditioning regimens—sequential 4-day regimen of Flu/Bu (Flu/Bu4) versus Flu/Bu4 and total body irradiation (400 cGy)—in patients with myeloid diseases, ~75% of whom had AML. In the AML cohort and holistic study population, risk of relapse was lower with Flu/Bu4/TBI than Flu/Bu4 but this was not statistically significant. Non-relapse mortality was increased in the Flu/Bu4/TBI arm. Consequently, overall survival at 1 year was similar between both treatment arms, meaning no survival advantage was observed with adding TBI to Flu/Bu4.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) is a curative treatment for myeloid diseases, yet relapse remains the major cause of post-transplant mortality. To reduce the risk of recurrence, we evaluated the addition of 400 cGy total body irradiation (TBI) to conditioning with fludarabine-busulfan (Flu/Bu4). Methods: In this prospective study, 46 patients with myeloid diseases were randomized to Flu/Bu4 or Flu/Bu4/TBI conditioning group. The Flu/Bu4 conditioning regimen consisted of fludarabine 40 mg/m2 on days -6 to -3 followed by busulfan 130 mg/m2 on days -6 to -3. Flu/Bu4/TBI conditioning regimen added 400 cGy TBI on day -1 to the FluBu4 regimen. Results: Among 34 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients, relapse was numerically lower in those who received Flu/Bu4/TBI (25%) versus Flu/Bu4 (44.4%) at three years (HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.81, p = 0.35). Flu/Bu4/TBI appeared to increase the risk of non-relapse mortality (NRM) vs. Flu/Bu4 in AML patients at three years (25.0% versus 11.1%; HR = 2.11, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.83, p = 0.65). Overall survival (OS) was similar in AML patients undergoing conditioning with Flu/Bu4 (72.2%) versus Flu/Bu4/TBI (62.5%) at one year (p = 0.4). Conclusions: In conclusion, the addition of 400 cGy TBI to Flu/Bu4 reduced the risk of relapse but did not improve OS as a consequence of higher regimen-related mortality. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01366612.

1. Introduction

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) is a critical treatment modality in adults with myeloid malignancies. The anti-leukemic effects of alloSCT are attributed to the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect mediated by donor cells and are also a direct result proportional to the intensity of the pre-transplant conditioning regimen. However, the benefits of myeloablative conditioning (MAC) are limited (especially for older patients and those with co-morbid illnesses) by considerable non-relapse mortality (NRM) secondary to treatment-related toxicity, graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), and infectious complications [1,2].
To overcome the higher risks of NRM with MAC, reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens for alloSCT were developed for use in various hematologic malignancies. The advent of RIC regimens permits the extension of a potentially curative GVL effect to patients in whom transplantation using MAC is prohibited by comorbidities or age [3,4,5]. At present, most allografts performed in the United States use an RIC regimen [6,7], though higher rates of relapse have been identified with the utilization of an RIC regimen when compared with MAC [8,9].
Studies comparing total body irradiation (TBI)-based MAC regimens identified dose-dependent effects with an inverse relationship between anti-leukemic activity and NRM [10,11,12]. Busulfan was developed as an alternative to TBI [13]. A phase I study initially demonstrated the maximum dose of oral busulfan as 16 mg/kg given concomitantly with cyclophosphamide (Cy) [14]. Subsequent studies demonstrated the variability of serum levels using the oral regimen [15], development and tolerability of an intravenous formulation [16], and decreased toxicity with substitution of fludarabine for Cy [17]. The lower toxicity of the fludarabine/busulfan (Flu/Bu) regimen presented the possibility of increasing the intensity of the regimen to achieve a lower risk of relapse.
A retrospective study published in 2010 by Russell et al. evaluated a sequential 4-day regimen of fludarabine/busulfan (Flu/Bu4) with or without the addition of 400 cGy of TBI for pre-transplant conditioning of patients with acute leukemia [18]. The researchers suggested, based on this non-randomized study, that adding 400 cGy TBI to Flu/Bu4 significantly reduced relapse and improved both overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival, with no differences in NRM observed at 3 years. However, the benefits of adding TBI to Flu/Bu4 have not been evaluated in a prospective, randomized trial. Therefore, this prospective randomized clinical trial was designed to confirm the retrospective study results.

2. Materials and Methods

This is a prospective, randomized clinical trial that enrolled 48 adult patients with myeloid diseases undergoing alloSCT from July 2010 to August 2019 at Hackensack University Medical Center (Figure 1). The eligible subjects for this study were those who had diagnosis of a myeloid malignancy and had a human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-compatible related or unrelated stem cell donor. Two subjects who did not receive stem cell transplantation were considered screen failures and are excluded from the analysis (final accrual n = 46). Study accrual was halted earlier than planned (target n = 52 subjects) when interim analysis showed that adding TBI to Flu/Bu4 resulted in increased regimen-related mortality.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for this study was obtained from Hackensack Meridian Health’s IRB (Pro00001278), and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The study was conducted under the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines and according to the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.1. Treatment

Subjects were randomized to Flu/Bu4 or Flu/Bu4/TBI conditioning prior to alloSCT. The preparative myeloablative chemotherapy included fludarabine 40 mg/m2 based on the following dosing convention: adjusted body weight if a patient weighs 120–150% of ideal body weight (IBW); actual body weight (ABW) if a patient weighs less than 100% of IBW. Fludarabine was administered intravenously once daily on days -6 to -3 followed by busulfan 130 mg/m2 intravenously once daily on days -6 to -3 (Flu/Bu4). Busulfan pharmacokinetic measurements were not used to adjust the busulfan serum levels in either cohort. The Flu/Bu4/TBI cohort also received 400 cGy TBI given in two 200 cGy fractions on day -1. All subjects received rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG; Thymoglobulin®) at doses of 0.5 mg/kg intravenously on day -3, 1.5 mg/kg intravenously on day -2, and 2 mg/kg intravenously on day -1.
Donors were chosen based on their compatibility for HLA-A, B, and DRB1 for related donors or HLA-A, B, C, and DRB1 for unrelated donors (URD). The source of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) and donor age or sex, ABO compatibility, HLA match, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) status were not defined by protocol and were ascertained by the treating physician. In accordance with institutional practices, male sex and younger age were prioritized in donor selection. Collection of stem cell grafts was performed via standard techniques. Excluding cryopreservation for donor management and red blood cell depletion of major mismatched, ABO-incompatible bone marrow grafts, no graft processing was performed. Peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) grafts were collected using standard techniques after granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilization with a target dose of 4 to 6 × 108 CD34+ cells/kg patient weight. The target threshold for bone marrow harvesting was >3 × 108 nucleated cells per kilogram; however, cells were infused without adjustment regardless of quantity. The National Marrow Donor Program or similar registries were used to source URD grafts. The median number of CD34+ stem cells per kilogram of body weight was 4.02 × 106 (range: 1.96–4.21 × 106) and 2.33 × 106 (range: 2.2–2.46 × 106) in the PBSC and BM grafts, respectively. Day 0 was defined as the day when cell product infusion was completed. Forty subjects received PBSCs. Six subjects received bone marrow (BM) grafts.
All patients received an acute GvHD (aGvHD) prophylaxis regimen of tacrolimus, which was initiated on day -1, adjusted to a target therapeutic level of 5–15 ng/mL, and tapered off by day 180 in absence of GvHD, and methotrexate 5 mg/m2 (ABW) intravenously on days 1, 3, 6, and 11 post-transplantation. rATG was given as described above. Supportive care was administered as described in Appendix A.
Initial treatment for aGvHD included prednisone or methylprednisolone in combination with continued tacrolimus. First-line therapy for steroid-resistant aGvHD was rATG 2 mg/kg every other day for 2 to 4 doses. cGvHD was treated with prednisone or methylprednisolone with or without tacrolimus, while other agents were introduced if the response was incomplete.

2.2. Definition of Relapse

Relapse was diagnosed as the recurrence of primary disease, defined as blasts > 5% on BM biopsy or the presence of circulating blasts on peripheral blood (PB) samples. Persistence or recurrence of minimal residual disease (MRD) detected in PB or BM samples either by flow cytometry or next-generation sequencing (NGS) was not defined as relapse. The date of relapse was the date of the BM biopsy or diagnostic PB sample confirming relapse.

2.3. Definition of Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GvHD)

Acute GvHD was diagnosed, staged, and graded on at least a weekly basis through day 84 according to consensus criteria [19]. Chronic GvHD (cGvHD) was diagnosed, staged, and graded on at least a monthly basis after day 84 according to consensus criteria [20]. The transplant team performed the grading.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Clinical outcomes included OS, event-free survival (EFS), NRM, relapse, aGvHD, and cGvHD. Continuous variables are presented as median and range, and categorical variables are summarized as counts and percentages. Survival data were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier curves for visualization and log-rank test for statistical analysis. Right-censoring at time of relapse was performed for the NRM analysis. Clinical endpoints of OS, EFS, NRM, and relapse were measured at 1 and 3 years after alloSCT. Statistical analyses after study enrollment were conducted via GraphPad Prism (Ver 9.1.0, GraphPad, San Diego, CA, USA) and SAS (Ver 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). For all analyses, the threshold for achievement of statistical significance was p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

Patient and transplant characteristics are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, with 24 and 22 subjects in the Flu/Bu4 and Flu/Bu4/TBI arms, respectively. The median age of the study population was 49 years (range: 22–63 years), and 58.7% were male. There were 34 AML patients, including four patients diagnosed with secondary AML, and all were in either first complete remission (CR1) or second complete remission (CR2) at the time of randomization. AML risk stratification was conducted using 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) risk stratification [21]. Other patients were diagnosed with the following myeloid diseases: five patients had intermediate or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), three patients had myelofibrosis, three patients had chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, and one patient had chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in myeloid blast crisis. The median follow-up after alloSCT until study termination was 27 months (range: 1–137 months).

3.2. Relapse

The 3-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) of myeloid diseases (n = 46) was 47.4% in the Flu/Bu4 group and 38.9% in the Flu/Bu4/TBI group (HR = 0.83, 95% CI, 0.32 to 2.16, log-rank p = 0.70; Figure 2A). Disease relapse in the first year in patients with AML (n = 34) who received Flu/Bu4 was 33.3% versus 18.8% in those who received Flu/Bu4/TBI, and 44.4% versus 25.0%, respectively, over three years (HR = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.19 to 1.81], p = 0.35; Figure 2B). In a subgroup analysis of patients aged 50 years and younger (Flu/Bu4 n = 11; Flu/Bu4/TBI n = 9), the 3-year CIR was 30.8% in the Flu/Bu4 group versus 10.0% in the Flu/Bu4/TBI group (HR = 0.23 [95% CI, 0.05 to 1.61] log-rank p = 0.15; Figure 2C).

3.3. Survival

No graft failures were observed. In the overall cohort, OS, EFS, and relapse at 1 year were 73.9%, 63.0%, and 26.1%, respectively. Three-year OS was 37.5% in patients who received Flu/Bu4 and 50% in patients treated with Flu/Bu4/TBI (HR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.92, log-rank p = 0.74; Figure 3A). Three-year EFS was 33.3% in the Flu/Bu4 group versus 50% in the Flu/Bu4TBI group (p = 0.70).
In a subgroup analysis of 34 subjects with AML, OS was 73.5% at 1 year. EFS at 1 year was numerically higher in AML patients who received Flu/Bu4 (77.8%) versus Flu/Bu4/TBI (68.8%) (p = 0.4). OS at 3 years was 44.4% in the Flu/Bu4 group versus 50% in the Flu/Bu4/TBI group (HR = 0.98, 95% CI, 0.39 to 2.50, log-rank p = 0.97; Figure 3B).
In a separate subgroup analysis of patients aged 50 years and younger (n = 20), 3-year OS was 70.0% in the Flu/Bu4/TBI group (n = 9) versus 46.2% in the Flu/Bu4 group (n = 11) (HR = 0.51, 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.84, log-rank p = 0.32; Figure 3C).

3.4. Non-Relapse Mortality

At day +100 from alloSCT, NRM was 2.2%, as one patient in the Flu/Bu4/TBI group died due to multi-organ failure. The 1-year NRM was 8.3% in the Flu/Bu4 cohort and 9.1% in the Flu/Bu4/TBI cohort. Among the 46 patients with myeloid disease, 12 patients (six patients in each cohort) died within one year of transplantation, including seven from disease relapse, two from aGvHD, one from infection, one from a fall, and one from organ failure (Table 3).
Among the 34 patients with AML, the 1-year NRM was 5.5% in the Flu/Bu4 group and 12.5% in the Flu/Bu4/TBI group. The 3-year NRM was 11.1% in the Flu/Bu4 cohort and 25.0% in the Flu/Bu4/TBI group (HR = 2.11, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.83, p = 0.65)

3.5. Development of GvHD

At day +100 from alloSCT, grade II–IV and III–IV aGvHD rates were 45.7% and 10.9%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of aGvHD at day +100 was numerically different in the Flu/Bu4 group and Flu/Bu4/TBI group (grade II–IV, 29.2% versus 63.6%, p < 0.1; grade III–IV, 8.3% versus 13.6, p = 0.7), though these findings did not reach statistical significance. At 1 year from alloSCT, limited cGvHD and extensive cGvHD rates were 26.1% and 13.0%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of cGvHD at 1 year was 29.2% and 50.0% in the Flu/Bu4 and Flu/Bu4/TBI groups, respectively (p = 0.5).

4. Discussion

Although a retrospective study found that Flu/Bu4/TBI conditioning prior to alloSCT was associated with improved overall survival when compared to Flu/Bu4 [19], those findings were not confirmed in this prospective randomized study. This prospective, randomized study’s results show that augmenting Flu/Bu4 with 400 cGy TBI resulted in a non-significant trend toward a lower risk of relapse but failed to provide a statistically significant benefit in OS.
Research has been undertaken to evaluate Flu/Bu4 as a MAC regimen in subjects with myeloid malignancies [8,23,24]. In a study of Flu/Bu4 as MAC for HLA-identical sibling alloSCT in AML and MDS, Flu/Bu4 was associated with a 4-year DFS of 54% and OS of 62%, though a 30% risk of relapse was also identified [24]. For AML patients with a high risk of relapse, intensifying the conditioning regimen may be an option, yet limitations of chemotherapy augmentation are pronounced. Andersson et al. performed a randomized phase III clinical trial testing the addition of clofarabine to the Flu/Bu4 regimen [25] and found that the observed relapse benefit of adding clofarabine was eroded by higher transplant-related mortality (TRM), resulting in no benefit in survival.
Instead of adding chemotherapeutics to intensify the conditioning regimen, additional TBI was studied. Deeg et al. showed that the addition of 200 cGy TBI to treosulfan/fludarabine reduced the incidence of relapse and conferred superior 6-month PFS [26]. In patients with AML, the patients receiving TBI 200 cGy had a 16% relapse incidence while the patients not given TBI had 35% relapse. However, final analysis showed that these differences were not statistically significant, even without increasing toxicity or NRM.
The present study, which evaluated the addition of 400 cGy to a myeloablative Flu/Bu4 conditioning regimen, also did not note an increase in PFS or OS. Though the incidence of disease relapse in the Flu/Bu4/TBI group trended lower than in the Flu/Bu4 group, this difference did not translate into better survival rates due to possible increases in NRM. Subgroup analysis of younger patients (aged ≤50 years) exhibited a trend toward improved OS and lower incidence of relapse with the Flu/Bu4/TBI regimen (Figure 2C). However, since the study was underpowered and unable to detect any statistically significant differences between the two groups in the subgroup analysis, we cannot preclude that younger patients with AML would benefit from Flu/Bu4/TBI conditioning.
Though low-dose TBI does not appear to increase the risk of subsequent malignancy [27,28], the addition of 400 cGy TBI in conditioning regimens may induce more tissue damage, which was observed in this study: the incidence of grade II–IV aGvHD was significantly higher with Flu/Bu4/TBI vs. Flu/Bu4, though comparisons of grade ≥III aGvHD and cGvHD did not reach statistical significance (Table 4).
A limitation is that our study data are from a single institute. The study was underpowered due to small sample sizes and the challenges of multiple comparisons. The conclusiveness of subgroup analyses was subsequently limited. Furthermore, both GvHD prophylaxis and second-line treatment for aGvHD differed from the modalities employed in current practice, which may have skewed the regimen-related toxicity.
The lack of busulfan pharmacokinetics is another limitation of this study. Although busulfan pharmacokinetics was not used for either arm of this study, the patients in the Flu/Bu4/TBI arm may have been at risk of excess NRM when cumulative busulfan exposure was higher. Additionally, literature shows that investigators aim to mitigate the potential for additive toxicity with higher busulfan exposure and TBI. Prior to the addition of 400 cGy TBI to their Flu/Bu4 regimen, Russell et al. initially targeted busulfan exposure of 4500 uM/min [29], while after the addition of TBI, Ousia et al. employed a lower target busulfan exposure of 3750 uM/min [30].
Another limitation in this study was that pre-transplant MRD status was not routinely included for the study participants, although this should have been offset by the randomization of the study population.
The BMT CTN 0901 trial identified pre-transplant MRD status as a predictive marker of post-transplant outcomes in patients who underwent RIC [8,9]. A growing body of evidence suggests that MRD positivity prior to alloSCT is an independent predictor of poor post-transplant outcomes in AML [31,32,33,34,35]. Therefore, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that pre-transplant MRD status might skew the results of this clinical study.
Though many studies have sought to identify an optimal conditioning regimen to reduce post-transplant relapse and to increase survival, the trials couldn’t provide an ideal conditioning regimen in allogeneic stem cell transplant. Since many agents targeting specific mutations are in development, post-transplant maintenance regimens may be the solution to achieve these goals instead of attempting to escalate the dose intensity of the conditioning regimen through the addition of further agents. If pre- or post-transplant mutation study identifies a driving mutation of the myeloid diseases, a targeted therapy may be used in the post-transplant consolidation period.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this clinical trial compared two conditioning regimens, Flu/Bu4 and Flu/Bu4/TBI, in patients with myeloid diseases who received a related or unrelated alloSCT. The addition of 400 cGy TBI to the Flu/Bu4 regimen did not show survival advantage compared to the Flu/Bu4 regimen.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.C.S. and S.D.R.; data curation, H.C.S., S.K. and B.L.; formal analysis, T.N.; investigation, H.C.S., S.D.R., S.K., B.L., P.M., M.B. (Michele Boonstra), M.B. (Melissa Baker), M.D., A.S., D.H.V. and M.D.; methodology, H.C.S.; project administration, H.C.S.; supervision, H.C.S. and S.D.R.; writing—original draft, H.C.S., S.D.R., J.V. and B.B.; writing—review and editing, H.C.S., S.D.R., S.K., J.V., A.H., B.D., B.B., D.H.V. and M.L.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hackensack Meridian Health (reference number Pro00001278; approved on 14 May 2010).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to patient privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ABWActual body weight
aGvHDAcute graft-versus-host disease
AlloSCTAllogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
AMLAcute myeloid leukemia
ANCAbsolute neutrophil count
BMBone marrow
cGvHDChronic graft-versus-host disease
CIRCumulative incidence of relapse
CMLChronic myeloid leukemia
CML-BCChronic myeloid leukemia (blast crisis)
CMMLChronic myelomonocytic leukemia
CMVCytomegalovirus
CR1First complete remission
CR2Second complete remission
Cy Cyclophosphamide
ELNEuropean LeukemiaNet
EFSEvent-free survival
Flu/BuFludarabine/busulfan
Flu/Bu4Sequential 4-day regimen of fludarabine/busulfan
G-CSFGranulocyte colony-stimulating factor
GvHDGraft-versus-host disease
GVLGraft-versus-leukemia
HCT-CIHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Comorbidity Index
HLAHuman leukocyte antigen
HSCHematopoietic stem cells
IBWIdeal body weight
IQRInterquartile range
IRBInstitutional Review Board
MACMyeloablative conditioning
MDSMyelodysplastic syndrome
MFMyelofibrosis
MRDMinimal residual disease
MTXMethotrexate
NGSNext-generation sequencing
NRMNon-relapse mortality
OSOverall survival
PBPeripheral blood
PBSCPeripheral blood stem cells
PJPPneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia
rATGRabbit anti-thymocyte globulin
RICReduced-intensity conditioning
TacTacrolimus
TBITotal body irradiation
TRMTransplant-related mortality
URDUnrelated donors

Appendix A

Description of Supportive Care

Subjects were hospitalized until neutrophil engraftment and resolution of immediate post-transplant complications. Starting at initiation of the transplantation conditioning regimen, all subjects received a standard (adjusted for individual patient needs) antimicrobial prophylaxis regimen consisting of valacyclovir 500 mg by mouth twice daily continued for at least 12 months, ciprofloxacin 500 mg by mouth twice daily until neutrophil engraftment, and fluconazole 400 mg by mouth once daily through day 84 or discontinuation of corticosteroid therapy, if given. Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) prophylaxis using trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, atovaquone, or dapsone was initiated after engraftment was achieved and continued until completion of any GvHD prophylaxis and/or treatment. Leukocyte-depleted and irradiated blood products were given prophylactically for hemoglobin <7 g/dL or platelet count <10 × 109/L. All subjects received G-CSF 5 mcg/kg/day subcutaneously rounded to vial size starting on day 9 until achieving a sustained absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of ≥0.5 × 109/L. Granulocyte engraftment was defined as a neutrophil count of >0.5 × 109/L for three consecutive daily measurements. Platelet engraftment was defined as a platelet count sustained above 20 × 109/L, without transfusion support, for 7 days. BM aspirations were performed at 3 months to assess engraftment and disease response. Subjects had additional BM studies as clinically indicated. Primary graft failure is defined by the absence of initial donor cell engraftment characterized by peripheral blood absolute neutrophil count less than 0.5 × 109/L by day 28 after alloSCT in the absence of relapse.

References

  1. Cooper, J.P.; Storer, B.E.; Granot, N.; Gyurkocza, B.; Sorror, M.L.; Chauncey, T.R.; Shizuru, J.; Franke, G.-N.; Maris, M.B.; Boyer, M.; et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with non-myeloablative conditioning for patients with hematologic malignancies: Improved outcomes over two decades. Haematologica 2021, 106, 1599–1607. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Lipof, J.J.; Loh, K.P.; O’Dwyer, K.; Liesveld, J.L. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancers 2018, 10, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jethava, Y.S.; Sica, S.; Savani, B.; Socola, F.; Jagasia, M.; Mohty, M.; Nagler, A.; Bacigalupo, A. Conditioning regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants in acute myeloid leukemia. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017, 52, 1504–1511. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Leonard, J.T.; Hayes-Lattin, B. Reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia; current evidence, and improving outcomes going forward. Curr. Hematol. Malig. Rep. 2018, 13, 329–340. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sengsayadeth, S.; Savani, B.N.; Blaise, D.; Malard, F.; Nagler, A.; Mohty, M. Reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for adult acute myeloid leukemia in complete remission—A review from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT. Haematologica 2015, 100, 859–869. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolon, Y.T.; Atshan, A.R.; Allbee-Johnson, M.; Estrada-Merly, N.; Lee, S.J. Current Uses and Outcomes of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the U.S. Available online: https://cibmtr.org/CIBMTR/Resources/Summary-Slides-Reports (accessed on 20 February 2025).
  7. Craddock, C.; Jackson, A.; Loke, J.; Siddique, S.; Hodgkinson, A.; Mason, J.; Andrew, G.; Nagra, S.; Malladi, R.; Peniket, A.; et al. Augmented reduced-intensity regimen does not improve postallogeneic transplant outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 768–778. [Google Scholar]
  8. Scott, B.L.; Pasquini, M.C.; Logan, B.R.; Wu, J.; Devine, S.M.; Porter, D.L.; Maziarz, R.T.; Warlick, E.D.; Fernandez, H.F.; Alyea, E.P.; et al. Myeloablative versus reduced-intensity hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 1154–1161. [Google Scholar]
  9. Scott, B.L.; Pasquini, M.C.; Fei, M.; Fraser, R.; Wu, J.; Devine, S.M.; Porter, D.L.; Maziarz, R.T.; Warlick, E.; Fernandez, H.F.; et al. Myeloablative versus reduced-intensity conditioning for hematopoietic cell transplantation in acute myelogenous leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes–long-term follow-up of the BMT CTN 0901 clinical trial. Transplant. Cell. Ther. 2021, 27, 483.e1–483.e6. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bieri, S.; Helg, C.; Chapuis, B.; Miralbell, R. Total body irradiation before allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: Is more dose better? Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2001, 49, 1071–1077. [Google Scholar]
  11. Clift, R.A.; Buckner, C.D.; Appelbaum, F.R.; Bearman, S.I.; Petersen, F.B.; Fisher, L.D.; Anasetti, C.; Beatty, P.; Bensinger, W.I.; Doney, K.; et al. Allogeneic marrow transplantation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first remission: A randomized trial of two irradiation regimens. Blood 1990, 76, 1867–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sabloff, M.; Chhabra, S.; Wang, T.; Fretham, C.; Kekre, N.; Abraham, A.; Adekola, K.; Auletta, J.J.; Barker, C.; Beitinjaneh, A.M.; et al. Comparison of high doses of total body irradiation in myeloablative conditioning before hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019, 25, 2398–2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kebriaei, P.; Anasetti, C.; Zhang, M.-J.; Wang, H.-L.; Aldoss, I.; de Lima, M.; Khoury, H.J.; Sandmaier, B.M.; Horowitz, M.M.; Artz, A.; et al. Intravenous busulfan compared with total body irradiation pretransplant conditioning for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018, 24, 726–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Santos, G.W.; Tutschka, P.J.; Brookmeyer, R.; Saral, R.; Beschorner, W.E.; Bias, W.B.; Braine, H.G.; Burns, W.H.; Elfenbein, G.J.; Kaizer, H.; et al. Marrow transplantation for acute nonlymphocytic leukemia after treatment with busulfan and cyclophosphamide. N. Engl. J. Med. 1983, 309, 1347–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lindley, C.; Shea, T.; McCune, J.; Shord, S.; Decker, J.; Harvey, D.; Petros, W.P.; Garbriel, D.; Serody, J.; Kirby, S.; et al. Intraindividual variability in busulfan pharmacokinetics in patients undergoing a bone marrow transplant: Assessment of a test dose and first dose strategy. Anticancer Drugs 2004, 15, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shimoni, A.; Bielorai, B.; Toren, A.; Hardan, I.; Avigdor, A.; Yeshurun, M.; Ben-Bassat, I.; Nagler, A. Intravenous busulfan-based conditioning prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: Myeloablation with reduced toxicity. Exp. Hematol. 2003, 31, 428–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, H.; Zhai, X.; Song, Z.; Sun, J.; Xiao, Y.; Nie, D.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, F.; Zhou, H.; Fan, Z.; et al. Busulfan plus fludarabine as a myeloablative conditioning regimen compared with busulfan plus cyclophosphamide for acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A prospective and multicenter study. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2013, 6, 15. [Google Scholar]
  18. Russell, J.A.; Irish, W.; Balogh, A.; Chaudhry, M.A.; Savoie, M.L.; Turner, A.R.; Larratt, L.; Storek, J.; Bahlis, N.J.; Brown, C.B.; et al. The addition of 400 cGY total body irradiation to a regimen incorporating once-daily intravenous busulfan, fludarabine, and antithymocyte globulin reduces relapse without affecting nonrelapse mortality in acute myelogenous leukemia. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010, 16, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Harris, A.C.; Young, R.; Devine, S.; Hogan, W.J.; Ayuk, F.; Bunworasate, U.; Chanswangphuwana, C.; Efebera, Y.A.; Holler, E.; Litzow, M.; et al. International, multicenter standardization of acute graft-versus-host disease clinical data collection: A report from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016, 22, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pavletic, S.Z.; Vogelsang, G.B.; Lee, S.J. 2014 National Institutes of Health consensus development project on criteria for clinical trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease: Preface to the series. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015, 21, 387–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Döhner, H.; Estey, E.; Grimwade, D.; Amadori, S.; Appelbaum, F.R.; Büchner, T.; Dombret, H.; Ebert, B.L.; Fenaux, P.; Larson, R.A.; et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood 2017, 129, 424–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sorror, M.L.; Maris, M.B.; Storb, R.; Baron, F.; Sandmaier, B.M.; Maloney, D.G.; Storer, B. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)-specific comorbidity index: A new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT. Blood 2005, 106, 2912–2919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. De La Serna, J.; Sanz, J.; Bermudez, A.; Cabrero, M.; Serrano, D.; Vallejo, C.; Gómez, V.; Moraleda, J.M.; Perez, S.G.; Caballero, M.D.; et al. Toxicity and efficacy of busulfan and fludarabine myeloablative conditioning for HLA-identical sibling allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in AML and MDS. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016, 51, 961–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Patel, S.S.; Rybicki, L.; Pohlman, B.; Bolwell, B.; Gerds, A.T.; Hamilton, B.K.; Hanna, R.; Kalaycio, M.; Majhail, N.S.; Sobecks, R. Comparative effectiveness of busulfan/cyclophosphamide versus busulfan/fludarabine myeloablative conditioning for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Hematol. Oncol. Stem Cell Ther. 2020, 13, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Andersson, B.S.; Thall, P.F.; Ma, J.; Valdez, B.C.; Bassett, R., Jr.; Chen, J.; Ahmed, S.; Alousi, A.; Bashir, Q.; Ciurea, S.; et al. A randomized phase III study of pretransplant conditioning for AML/MDS with fludarabine and once daily IV busulfan +/− clofarabine in allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022, 57, 1295–1303. [Google Scholar]
  26. Deeg, H.J.; Stevens, E.A.; Salit, R.B.; Ermoian, R.P.; Fang, M.; Gyurkocza, B.; Sorror, M.L.; Fatobene, G.; Baumgart, J.; Burroughs, L.M.; et al. Transplant conditioning with treosulfan/fludarabine with or without total body irradiation: A randomized phase II trial in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018, 24, 956–963. [Google Scholar]
  27. Baker, K.S.; Leisenring, W.M.; Goodman, P.J.; Ermoian, R.P.; Flowers, M.E.; Schoch, G.; Storb, R.; Sandmaier, B.M.; Deeg, H.J. Total body irradiation dose and risk of subsequent neoplasms following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood 2019, 133, 2790–2799. [Google Scholar]
  28. Nunez, L.; Abedin, T.; Naqvi, S.; Shen, H.; Chaudhry, A.; Bellerby, S.; Savoie, L.; Daly, A.; Shafey, M.; Duggan, P.; et al. Cumulative incidence of subsequent malignancy after allo-HCT conditioned with or without low-dose total body irradiation. Blood Adv. 2022, 6, 767–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Russell, J.A.; Kangarloo, S.B.; Williamson, T.; Chaudhry, M.A.; Savoie, M.L.; Turner, A.R.; Larratt, L.; Storek, J.; Bahlis, N.J.; Shafey, M.; et al. Establishing a target exposure for once-daily intravenous busulfan given with fludarabine and thymoglobulin before allogeneic transplantation. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013, 19, 1381–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ousia, S.; Kalra, A.; Williamson, T.S.; Prokopishyn, N.; Dharmani-Khan, P.; Khan, F.M.; Jimenez-Zepeda, V.; Jamani, K.; Duggan, P.R.; Daly, A.; et al. Hematopoietic cell transplant outcomes after myeloablative conditioning with fludarabine, busulfan, low-dose total body irradiation, and rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Clin. Transplant. 2020, 34, e14018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Buckley, S.A.; Wood, B.L.; Othus, M.; Hourigan, C.S.; Ustun, C.; Linden, M.A.; DeFor, T.E.; Malagola, M.; Anthias, C.; Valkova, V.; et al. Minimal residual disease prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia: A meta-analysis. Haematologica 2017, 102, 865–873. [Google Scholar]
  32. Short, N.J.; Zhou, S.; Fu, C.; Berry, D.A.; Walter, R.B.; Freeman, S.D.; Hourigan, C.S.; Huang, X.; Nogueras Gonzalez, G.; Hwang, H.; et al. Association of measurable residual disease With survival outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, 1890–1899. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Araki, D.; Wood, B.L.; Othus, M.; Radich, J.P.; Halpern, A.B.; Zhou, Y.; Mielcarek, M.; Estey, E.H.; Appelbaum, F.R.; Walter, R.B. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: Time to move toward a minimal residual disease-based definition of complete remission? J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Morsink, L.M.; Sandmaier, B.M.; Othus, M.; Palmieri, R.; Granot, N.; Bezerra, E.D.; Wood, B.L.; Mielcarek, M.; Schoch, G.; Davis, C.; et al. Conditioning intensity, pre-transplant flow cytometric measurable residual disease, and outcome in adults with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Cancers 2020, 12, 2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Simoes, C.; Paiva, B.; Martinez-Cuadrón, D.; Bergua, J.-M.; Vives, S.; Algarra, L.; Tormo, M.; Martinez, P.; Serrano, J.; Herrera, P.; et al. Measurable residual disease in elderly acute myeloid leukemia: Results from the PETHEMA-FLUGAZA phase 3 clinical trial. Blood Adv. 2021, 5, 760–770. [Google Scholar]
Cancers 17 01140 g001
Figure 1. Consort diagram of patient recruitment and randomization.
Figure 1. Consort diagram of patient recruitment and randomization.
Cancers 17 01140 g001
Cancers 17 01140 g002aCancers 17 01140 g002b
Figure 2. Relapse risk after alloSCT with Flu/Bu4 or Flu/Bu4/TBI conditioning. (A) Relapse risk among patients with myeloid diseases (n = 46); (B) relapse risk among patients with AML (n = 34); (C) relapse risk among patients 50 years old and younger (n = 23).
Figure 2. Relapse risk after alloSCT with Flu/Bu4 or Flu/Bu4/TBI conditioning. (A) Relapse risk among patients with myeloid diseases (n = 46); (B) relapse risk among patients with AML (n = 34); (C) relapse risk among patients 50 years old and younger (n = 23).
Cancers 17 01140 g002aCancers 17 01140 g002b
Cancers 17 01140 g003aCancers 17 01140 g003b
Figure 3. Overall survival after alloSCT with Flu/Bu4 or Flu/Bu4/TBI conditioning. (A) OS of patients with myeloid diseases (n = 46); (B) OS of patients with AML (n = 34); (C) OS of patients 50 years old and younger (n = 23).
Figure 3. Overall survival after alloSCT with Flu/Bu4 or Flu/Bu4/TBI conditioning. (A) OS of patients with myeloid diseases (n = 46); (B) OS of patients with AML (n = 34); (C) OS of patients 50 years old and younger (n = 23).
Cancers 17 01140 g003aCancers 17 01140 g003b
Table 1. Comparison of patient and disease characteristics.
Table 1. Comparison of patient and disease characteristics.
VariableFlu/Bu4
(n = 24)
Count (%)		Flu/Bu4/TBI
(n = 22)
Count (%)		p-Value
Age, years 0.91
  Median (IQR)49.0 (40.5–60.5)53.0 (42.0–58.0)
  Range (Min–Max)25.0–62.022.0–63.0
Sex 0.96
  Female10 (41.7)9 (40.9)
  Male14 (58.3)13 (59.1)
HCT-CI 1 0.49
  0–222 (91.7)22 (100)
  ≥32 (8.3)0 (0)
Diagnosis 0.89
  AML18 (75.0)16 (72.7)
    Favorable risk5 (27.8)0 (0)0.06
    Intermediate risk4 (22.2)3 (18.8)
    Adverse risk9 (50.0)13 (81.2)
    CR status 1.00
      CR113 (72.2)11 (68.6)
      CR25 (27.8)5 (31.2)
    MDS3 (12.5)2 (9.1)
    MF1 (4.2)2 (9.1)
    CML-BC0 (0)1 (4.6)
    CMML2 (8.3)1 (4.6)
1 Pre-transplantation comorbidities were assessed by means of the Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) score [22].
Table 2. Comparison of donor and transplant characteristics.
Table 2. Comparison of donor and transplant characteristics.
VariableFlu/Bu4
(n = 24)
Count (%)		Flu/Bu4/TBI
(n = 22)
Count (%)		p-Value
Donor 0.23
  Sibling, identical9 (37.5)4 (18.2)
  Unrelated
    HLA matched13 (54.2)13 (59.1)
    HLA mismatched2 (8.3)5 (22.7)
Donor/Recipient Sex 0.20
  Male to Male10 (41.7)9 (40.9)
  Male to Female4 (16.7)8 (36.3)
  Female to Male4 (16.7)4 (18.2)
  Female to Female6 (25.0)1 (4.6)
Stem cell source 0.41
  PBSCs22 (91.7)18 (81.8)
  BM2 (8.3)4 (18.2)
GvHD prophylaxis
  Tac/MTX24 (100)22 (100)
CMV status 0.37
  Donor+ to Recipient+8 (33.3)6 (27.3)
  Donor+ to Recipient−1 (4.2)5 (22.7)
  Donor− to Recipient+8 (33.3)6 (27.3)
  Donor− to Recipient−7 (29.2)5 (22.7)
Time to engraftment
  Neutrophil (days)
    Median (IQR)13.0 (12.0–15.0)13.0 (12.0–14.0)
    Range (Min–Max)11.0–23.010.0–20.0
  Platelet (days)
    Median (IQR)12.0 (10.0–15.0)13.0 (12.0–18.0)
    Range (Min–Max)10.0–21.09.0–20.0
Table 3. Comparison of cause of death.
Table 3. Comparison of cause of death.
VariableFlu/Bu4
Count (%)		Flu/Bu4/TBI
Count (%)
Relapse7 (53.8)5 (45.4)
GvHD1 (7.7)2 (18.2)
Organ failure1 (7.7)2 (18.2)
Infection2 (15.4)2 (18.2)
Other cancer1 (7.7)0 (0)
Accident1 (7.7)0 (0)
Table 4. Comparison of incidence of GvHD.
Table 4. Comparison of incidence of GvHD.
VariableFlu/Bu4
Count (%)		Flu/Bu4/TBI
Count (%)		p-Value
Acute GvHD
  Grade II–IV7 (29.2)14 (63.6)0.02
  Grade ≥ III2 (8.3)3 (13.6)0.66
Chronic GvHD 0.87
  Limited4 (16.7)8 (36.4)
  Extensive3 (12.5)3 (13.6)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Suh, H.C.; Rowley, S.D.; Kaur, S.; Lukasik, B.; McKiernan, P.; Boonstra, M.; Baker, M.; DiLorenzo, M.; Skarbnik, A.; Voss, J.; et al. Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study of Myeloablative Fludarabine/Busulfan and Fludarabine/Busulfan/Total Body Irradiation Conditioning in Myeloid Diseases. Cancers 2025, 17, 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17071140

AMA Style

Suh HC, Rowley SD, Kaur S, Lukasik B, McKiernan P, Boonstra M, Baker M, DiLorenzo M, Skarbnik A, Voss J, et al. Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study of Myeloablative Fludarabine/Busulfan and Fludarabine/Busulfan/Total Body Irradiation Conditioning in Myeloid Diseases. Cancers. 2025; 17(7):1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17071140

Chicago/Turabian Style

Suh, Hyung C., Scott D. Rowley, Sukhdeep Kaur, Brittany Lukasik, Phyllis McKiernan, Michele Boonstra, Melissa Baker, Mary DiLorenzo, Alan Skarbnik, Jason Voss, and et al. 2025. "Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study of Myeloablative Fludarabine/Busulfan and Fludarabine/Busulfan/Total Body Irradiation Conditioning in Myeloid Diseases" Cancers 17, no. 7: 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17071140

APA Style

Suh, H. C., Rowley, S. D., Kaur, S., Lukasik, B., McKiernan, P., Boonstra, M., Baker, M., DiLorenzo, M., Skarbnik, A., Voss, J., Hampson, A., DeAgresta, B., Boylan, B., Nyirenda, T., Vesole, D. H., & Donato, M. L. (2025). Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study of Myeloablative Fludarabine/Busulfan and Fludarabine/Busulfan/Total Body Irradiation Conditioning in Myeloid Diseases. Cancers, 17(7), 1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17071140

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop