AzTrials
AzTrials

MyelofibrosisPhase 2GITMO-MF2010NCT01814475

Study to Compare Busulfan-fludarabine With Thiotepa-fludarabine Regimen in Allogeneic Transplantation for Myelofibrosis

A Phase 2 study testing A: Fludarabine + Busulphan and B: Fludarabine + Thiotepa in people with Myelofibrosis, run by Gruppo Italiano Trapianto di Midollo Osseo at 21 sites in Italy.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study will be performed as a prospective multicenter phase II trial for compare busulfan-fludarabine reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) with thiotepa-fludarabine RIC regimen prior to allogeneic transplantation of hematopoietic cells for the treatment of myelofibrosis. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 70 years
Conditions the study is for
Myelofibrosis
What is being tested?
A: Fludarabine + Busulphan and B: Fludarabine + Thiotepa
Type of treatment
Injection or infusion
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
62 participants
Where
21 sitesItaly
Study dates
Jul 2011to 31 Dec 2016
Phase
Phase 2
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 70 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Age ≥ 18 ≤ 70 years
  • Primary or secondary myelofibrosis after essential thrombocythemia or polycythemia vera
  • One of the following unfavourable prognostic factors: Hb < 10 g/dL or leukocytes >25x109/L or > 1% circulating blasts in the peripheral blood or constitutional symptoms
  • Performance Status (Karnofsky)≥ 60%
  • Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Score ≤ 5
  • Written informed consent

Who cannot join

  • -≥ 20% blasts in peripheral blood and/or bone marrow
  • Positive serologic markers for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
  • Acute hepatitis B virus (HBV) or acute hepatic C virus (HCV) infection
  • Severe irreversible renal, hepatic, pulmonary or cardiac disease, such as: --total bilirubin, Serum Glutamate Oxaloacetate Transaminase (SGOT) or Serum Glutamate Pyruvate Transaminase (SGPT) > 5 the upper normal limit;
  • Left ventricular ejection fraction < 40%;
  • Clearance creatinine < 30 ml/min;
Show all 13Show fewer
  • Diffusing Capacity of Lung for Carbon monoxide (DLCO) < 30% and/or receiving supplementary oxygen.
  • Pregnancy or lactation
  • Any active, uncontrolled infection
  • Donors:
  • Age ≥ 18 < 65 years
  • human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical sibling donor by high resolution DNA-based HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, typing
  • human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical unrelated donor by high resolution DNA-based human leukocyte antigen-A, human leukocyte antigen-B, human leukocyte antigen-C, human leukocyte antigen-DRB1 typing. One allele mismatched (class I) can be accepted for recipients up to 60 years.

Trial locations and contacts

21 sites in 1 country.

21 sites in 1 country

Italy21 sites
  • Azienda Ospedaliera SS Antonio e Biagio

    Alessandria

  • Clinica di Ematologia - Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona

    Ancona

  • Divisione di Ematologia - Ospedali Papa Giovanni XXIII

    Bergamo

  • AO Spedali Civili di Brescia- USD - TMO Adulti

    Brescia

  • Ospedale Ferrarotto - Ematologia

    Catania

  • Cattedra di Ematologia - Azienda Ospedaliera di Careggi

    Florence

  • Ematologia e Centro Trapianti Midollo Osseo - Ospedale IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza

    Foggia

  • AOU IRCCS San Martino - IST

    Genova

  • Ospedale Panico

    Lecce

  • Divisione di Ematologia - Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori

    Milan

  • Divisione Ematologia - Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria - Policlinico -

    Modena

  • AO Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia - Cervello

    Palermo

  • Dipartimento Oncologico La Maddalena

    Palermo

  • Fondazione IRCCS San Matteo

    Pavia, 27100

  • Dip. di Ematologia - Unità di Terapia Intensiva Ematologica per il Trapianto Emopoietico - Ospedale Civile di Pescara

    Pescara

  • Centro Unico Regionale Trapianti di Midollo Osseo - Ospedale Bianchi-Melacino-Morelli

    Reggio Calabria

  • Arciospedale S. M. Novella

    Reggio Emilia

  • Cattedra di Ematologia - Università La Sapienza

    Roma

  • Ospedale San Giuseppe Moscato

    Taranto

  • Ematologia 2 - ASO San Giovanni Battista

    Torino

  • A.O. Santa Maria della Misericordia

    Udine

Other trials in Italy

About this study

Official title: Prospective, Phase II Randomized Study to Compare Busulfan-fludarabine Reduced-intensity Conditioning (RIC) With Thiotepa-fludarabine RIC Regimen Prior to Allogeneic Transplantation of Hematopoietic Cells for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis

This study will be performed as a prospective multicenter phase II trial for compare busulfan-fludarabine reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) with thiotepa-fludarabine RIC regimen prior to allogeneic transplantation of hematopoietic cells for the treatment of myelofibrosis.

The primary endpoint for this study is to compare Progression Free Survival of two different RIC regimens for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in myelofibrosis.

Progression Free Survival is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documented disease progression or relapse (according to the International Working Group Consensus Criteria) or death due to any cause. Patients who have neither progressed nor died at the time of study completion or who are lost to follow-up are censored at the data of the last follow up for progression of disease for this study.

Read the detailed description

This is the first study to explore the efficacy of two different Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in myelofibrosis. The choice of 60 patients is based on feasibility reasons. GITMO data at hand points to an estimated accrual of twenty patients per year over a tree-year enrolment period. Criteria for defining sample size do not follow statistical power estimates in order to demonstrate the difference of lack of it between two treatments. However, the criteria reflect the overall efficacy and safety of comparing the two treatments among all patients requiring the treatment within the health system. This criterion offers the best estimate for power of study.

Myelofibrosis is a clonal hematopoietic stem cell disorder that is clinically characterized by progressive anemia, marked splenomegaly, extramedullary hematopoiesis, constitutional symptoms and a significant risk of evolution into acute leukaemia myelofibrosis can appear as a primitive or idiopathic disorder or, less frequently, as a secondary complication of essential thrombocythemia or polycythemia vera, with a clinical presentation and course similar to the idiopathic form. The disease affects mainly elderly people, with a median age at diagnosis of about 65 years. It is a heterogeneous disorder in term of presentation and evolution, with a median overall survival (OS) varying between 2 and 15 years, depending on the presence or absence of clinically defined prognostic factors. Adverse prognostic factors for survival have included advanced age, marked anemia, leukocytosis or leukopenia, abnormal karyotype, constitutional symptoms and presence of circulating blasts. Moreover, the prognostic value of cytogenetic abnormalities, increased number of circulating cluster of differentiation 34 cells in peripheral blood and Janus kinase 2 mutational status has been also evaluated. The available prognostic score systems are mainly based on clinical variables. The most widely used is the 'Lille score' (Dupriez et al.) which is based on hemoglobin level and leukocyte count. The Mayo Clinic Group tried to improve the Lille score by adding thrombocytopenia and monocytosis. The International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment recently proposed a new scoring system analyzing the largest patient population and recognized 5 main unfavourable variables which were: age > 65 years, presence of constitutional symptoms, and circulating blasts cells ≥ 1%, anemia and leucocytosis. All these prognostic systems could clearly separate intermediate or high risk patients (with a median survival ranging between 1 and 4 years) from patients with a favourable prognosis (median survival of 8-10 years).

Kroger on behalf of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation reported data on 104 patients mainly with intermediate or high risk score who received a conditioning regimen based on fludarabine 180 mg/mq and busulfan 8 mg/kg i.v or 10 mg/Kg p.o and hematopoietic stem cells coming from sibling or unrelated donors. Engraftment was 99%; 1-year transplant-related mortality was 16% and was significantly increased in patients older than 50 years, in cases with intermediate and high-risk myelofibrosis and after transplants from mismatched donors. Five-year overall survival was 67% and 5 -year event-free-survival was 51%. Relapse rate was higher in splenectomized patients and if disease duration prior transplant was >24 months. Moreover, Kroger reported that this conditioning regimen induced a Janus kinase 2 negativity in 78% of patients carrying the V617-JAK2 mutation before transplant and produced a rapid regression of bone marrow fibrosis in 59% of patients al day +100 and in 100% of patients at day +360. At present, the busulfan-fludarabine regimen could be considered as the Reduced-intensity conditioning regimen that has been tested on the largest patient population and demonstrated the best results in terms of feasibility and clinical, molecular and histological responses.

The Principal Investigator has recently reported data on a population of 100 patients with myelofibrosis who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in 26 transplant centers that are part of the GITMO in a 20-year period between 1986 and 2006 and we retrospectively analyzed the influence of patient and disease clinical features before stem cell transplantation and of transplant procedures on transplant-related mortality (TRM) and overall survival. We confirmed that myelofibrosis remains a rare indication for stem cell transplantation with the recruitment of about 15-17 cases per year since 2002 and observed a great heterogeneity in terms of conditioning regimens, Graft versus Host Disease prophylaxis and supportive measures. Although we observed a significative and progressive improvement of transplant-related mortality after 1996, we couldn't recognized any significative difference in outcome either between patients treated with myeloablative versus reduced- intensity regimens or among those treated with different Reduced-intensity conditioning regimen. The lack of any association between intensity of conditioning or type of drugs included in the preparative regimen could be in part due to the great heterogeneity of transplant procedures. However, we showed that the regimens including thiotepa were administered to 24 out 52 patients (46%), whereas the other patients received heterogeneous preparative regimens. The combination of thiotepa and cyclophosphamide was originally described for autologous transplants; then thiotepa was used with a 30% dose reduction as Reduced-intensity conditioning regimen in association with Cyclophosphamide and/or fludarabine followed by haematopoietic stem cells in elderly patients with acute leukemias, in heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory lymphomas and in myelodysplastic syndromes, showing to be highly feasible and effective. Both these protocols were used in Italy by researchers and physicians participating to GITMO.

In conclusion, the rational of the present study are the following:

  • myelofibrosis is a rare indication for allogeneic transplantation with a limited number of patients recruitable in the whole Italian region.
  • At the present time there are not available sufficient data to support a standard conditioning regimen for these patients.
  • Italian hematologists grouped in the GITMO intend to overcome the general uncertainty in the choice of the conditioning regimen and to test prospectively in a controlled study a uniform strategy of transplant procedures for this rare condition.
  • Therefore, we want to compare two Reduced-intensity conditioning regimens, the thiotepa-fludarabine regimen, that has been the most common one used in Italy in the last 5 years , and the busulfan-fludarabine one, that has been reported in the literature to achieve the best results in terms of feasibility and clinical responses . A randomized comparison is likely to increase our knowledge on safety and efficacy of these conditioning regimens and consolidate assumption for the planning of a phase II trial.
Conditions
Myelofibrosis
Being tested
A: Fludarabine + Busulphan, B: Fludarabine + Thiotepa
Keywords
myelofibrosis, unfavourable prognostic factors, Allogeneic stem cell transplantation, Progression Free Survival, thrombocythemia vera, polycythemia vera, Reduced-intensity conditioning
Medical subject headings
Primary Myelofibrosis, Polycythemia Vera

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • A: Fludarabine + BusulphanDrug

    Also called BU-FLU

    Fludarabine 30 mg/m2/d, day -8 to day-3 and Busulphan (Busilvex) 0,8 mg/Kg/i.v. dose x 4 doses on days -5,-4 and x 2 doses on day -3, total dose 8 mg/Kg) prior allogenic transplant (day zero)

  • B: Fludarabine + ThiotepaDrug

    Also called THIO-FLU

    Fludarabine 30 mg/m2/d day -8 to day -3 Thiotepa 6 mg/Kg for 2 doses ( days -4, -3) prior allogeneic transplant (day zero)

Study groups in NCT01814475
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
A: Fludarabine + BusulphanActive comparatorConventional conditioning regimen with Fludarabine and Busulphan (Busilvex)for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in myelofibrosis
Receives: Drug: A: Fludarabine + Busulphan
B: Fludarabine + ThiotepaExperimentalReduced-intensity conditioning with Fludarabine and Thiotepa for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in myelofibrosis
Receives: Drug: B: Fludarabine + Thiotepa

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Progression -free survival at one year

    The primary endpoint for this study is to compare Progression Free Survival of two different RIC regimens for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in myelofibrosis.

    Progression Free Survival is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documented disease progression or relapse (according to the International Working Group Consensus Criteria) or death due to any cause. Patients who have neither progressed nor died at the time of study completion or who are lost to follow-up are censored at the data of the last follow up for progression of disease for this study.

    Measured: Assessment at 1 year post randomization

Secondary outcomes (7)
  1. Safety and efficacy profile: The non relapse mortality

    The non relapse mortality (NRM) is defined as death due to any other cause than progression of malignancy after allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

    Measured: Assessment at 1 year post randomization

  2. Safety and efficacy profile: Overall survival

    Overall survival is defined as the time between randomization and the date of death due to any cause or the last date the patient was known to be alive (censored observation) at the date of the data cut-off for the final analysis

    Measured: Assessment at 1 year post randomization

  3. Safety and efficacy profile: responses

    Rate of clinical hematological and histological responses

    Measured: Assessment at 1 year post randomization

  4. Safety and efficacy profile: molecular remissions

    Rate of molecular remissions in patients having a molecular marker (according to IWG consensus criteria)

    Measured: Assessment at 1 year post randomization

  5. Safety and efficacy profile: engraftment

    Cumulative incidence of engraftment. The day of engraftment is defined as the first 3 consecutive days on which the blood granulocyte count rises to 0.5 x 109/L

    Measured: participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 30 days

  6. Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease (aGvHD)

    The available information in the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) data regard the date of onset and the maximum grade of aGvHD. It is therefore possible to estimate the probability of aGvHD in a competing risks setting (death is a competing event; whether relapse/progression is a competing event must be discussed with the physician). By definition, patients alive (relapse/progression-free) at day 100 without having experienced aGvHD are censored. If the dates of onset are missing for the majority of patients, the analysis can focus only on the occurrence of aGvHD, which is analyzed by a logistic regression model. This method would however be incorrect if there is a (non negligible) percentage of censored observations or if competing events occurred before day 100.

    Measured: from date of transplant to until the date of first event of aCGVD assessed up to 100 days post transplant

  7. Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease (cGvHD)

    When possible, if information on the date of 1°occurrence of cGvHD is available, it should be analyzed as a time-to-event outcome, being death (and possibly relapse/progression) the competing event; data are censored for patients alive (relapse/progression-free) without episodes of cGvHD at last follow-up. Since cGvHD is defined only for patients surviving at least 100 days, the survival model should consider a left truncation at 100 days; alternatively, the time of occurrence of cGvHD must be computed from 100 days. If information on the timing of cGvHD is not available, the outcome considered is the occurrence, and the statistical model to be used is the logistic regression. Only patients surviving at least 100 days are considered to be at risk of developing cGvHD, therefore the analysis must be restricted to these patients. This analysis is of course not satisfactory because it does not take into account the occurrence of death and censoring.

    Measured: from day +100 post transplant to until the date of first event to cGVHD assessed up to 1 years post enrolment

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted20 Mar 2013 (estimated)
  2. Study startJul 2011
  3. Primary completion31 Dec 2016
  4. Study completion31 Dec 2016

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
62 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01814475
Sponsor's protocol ID
2010-022052-23 GITMO - MF2010
Acronym
GITMO-MF2010
Status last verified
Aug 2021
First submitted
14 Mar 2013
Last updated
20 Aug 2021
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 2 study testing A: Fludarabine + Busulphan and B: Fludarabine + Thiotepa in people with Myelofibrosis, run by Gruppo Italiano Trapianto di Midollo Osseo at 21 sites in Italy.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 13 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 Aug 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 21 sites in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Progression -free survival at one year (time frame: Assessment at 1 year post randomization). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 Aug 2021.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in