TRANSLATE

The mpn Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mpn Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mpn and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

The MPN Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by AOP Health and GSK, and supported through an educational grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.

Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients

Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.

Find out more

Busulphan efficacy and safety based on real-world dosing patterns in MPN management

By Jen Wyatt Green

Share:

May 16, 2025

Learning objective: After reading this article, learners will be able to cite a new clinical development in myeloproliferative neoplasms.


 

Treatments for patients with MPNs primarily aim to reduce thrombotic risks by managing blood counts using cytoreductive agents. The alkylating agent busulphan has been used historically to manage MPNs, providing an orally administered and cost-effective myelosuppressive option. However, its use has been limited due to concerns about leukemic transformation. Current prescribing practices vary considerably, with a lack of consensus.

Mahdi et al. conducted a real-world, retrospective study across 13 UK treatment centers evaluating prescribing regimens, characteristics, and outcomes of MPN patients treated with busulphan. A total of 115 patients diagnosed with ET (67%), PV (24%), MF (4%), and other MPN (5%) were included, with a median age of 78 years. ORR was defined as patients achieving a CR or PR as per ELN criteria. Findings were published in the European Journal of Haematology.1

 

Key learnings1

Busulphan rapidly reduced blood counts, with an ORR of 78.1%. The time to maximum response was 3 months for patients with PV and 4 months for those with ET, with 29% of PV and 18% of ET patients achieving CRs.

Busulphan dosing regimens were distributed comparably between repeated single doses (31%), 1–4 week treatment courses (30%), and continuous therapy for >4 weeks (35%), with no significant differences in outcomes observed between dosing patterns.

During the median follow-up of 23 months, no cases of disease progression to MF or acute leukemia were reported. Busulphan-related complications were reported in 14% of patients, with cytopenia and fatigue being the most common (4% each). 

These findings suggest that busulphan is a viable cytoreductive option with a favorable safety profile and should be considered in patients with a life expectancy of <10 years; particularly for elderly patients who are intolerant to standard cytoreductive therapies.

Abbreviations: AE, adverse event; CR, complete response; ELN, European LeukemiaNet; ET, essential thrombocytopenia; MF, myelofibrosis; MPN, myeloproliferative neoplasm; ORR, overall response rate; PR, partial response; PV, polycythemia vera.

References

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

The content was clear and easy to understand

The content addressed the learning objectives

The content was relevant to my practice

I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content

Your opinion matters

On average, how many patients with myelofibrosis do you see in a month?