Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 4;20(3):220–224. doi: 10.5114/wo.2016.61563

Table 1.

Conditioning regimens in transplanted patients according to the type of transplant and diagnosis

Type of transplant
n (%) – all transplants n = 31 (100%)
Diagnosis (n) Conditioning regimens (n)
Auto
n = 12 (38.7%)
RMS (2), GCT (1) Mel, Eto, Carbo (3)
Sa Ewing (4), AML (1), NBL (2) Bu, Mel (7)
ALL TBI, Eto (1)
AML Treo, Mel (1)
Allo MSD
n = 8 (25.8%)
lymphoma TBI, Thiot, Eto (2)
ALL TBI, Eto (2)
SAA Cy (1)
WAS Flu, Mel (1)
ADL X Flu, Mel, Thiot (1)
AML Bu, Cy (1)
Allo alternative (MUD, MMFD)
n = 11 (35.5%)
ALL (1), lymphoma (1) TBI, Eto (2)
AML TBI, Flu (1)
AML Treo, Cy, Mel (3)
SAA Flu, Cy (2)
SAA II TBI (1)
MDS Bu, Cy, Mel (1)
Omenn syndrome Flu, Mel (1)

Auto – autologous transplantation; Allo alternative – transplantation from alternative donors; MSD – matched sibling donor; MUD – matched unrelated donor; MMFD – mismatched family donor; TBI – total body irradiation; Thiot – thiotepa; Eto – etoposide; Flu – fludarabine; Bu – busulfan; Mel – melfalane; Treo – treosulfan; Cy – cyclophosphamide; Carbo – carboplatinum; AML – acute myeloblastic leukaemia; ALL – acute lymphoblastic leukaemia; SAA – severe aplastic anaemia; Sa Ewing – Ewing sarcoma; NBL – neuroblastoma; WAS – Wiscott-Aldrich syndrome; ALD-X – adrenoleukodystrophy; RMS – rhabdomyosarcoma; GCT – germ cell tumour