Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 27, 2026

Busulfan as a Myelosuppressive Agent for Generating Stable High-level Bone Marrow Chimerism in Mice
Published on: April 1, 2015
Busulfan dosing (Q6 or Q24) with adjusted or actual body weight, does it matter?
Amber Bradley Clemmons1, Sarah Evans2, David L DeRemer3
1Department of Clinical and Administrative Pharmacy, University of Georgia College of Pharmacy, Augusta, GA, USA Georgia Regents Cancer Center, Augusta, GA, USA aclemmons@gru.edu.
Background:
In hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), patients receive individualized treatment planning in conditioning regimens to prevent unwarranted toxicities while maximizing desired outcomes. The dose of a widely studied agent in this setting, busulfan, can be adjusted based on area under the curve (AUC); however, choice of actual body weight (ABW) versus adjusted body weight (DBW) weight to calculate the initial dose may be critical in attaining goal AUC.
Objective:
To determine which weight best correlates with achievement of goal AUC for patients receiving busulfan conditioning for HSCT. Secondary objectives include evaluation of AUC results with clinical outcomes such as toxicity and survival.
Methods:
An institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis was performed on 31 allogeneic HSCT recipients who received intravenous busulfan (Q6H with cyclophosphamide [Bu/Cy] or once daily with fludarabine [Flu/Bu]).
Results:
Eighteen patients received Flu/Bu (50% ABW, 50% DBW) and 13 received Bu/Cy (23% ABW, 77% DBW). Overall, patients dosed by DBW were more likely to undershoot goal AUC (-12.8% vs. +19.5%, p = 0.018) and require dose increases (+20% vs. -19.9%, p = 0.012) versus those dosed by ABW. Subgroup analysis confirmed these results for Bu/Cy (-23.6% vs. +2.2%, p < 0.001 for goal AUC; +36.2% vs. -4.5%, p = 0.008 for busulfan dose increase), but not Flu/Bu (-0.8% vs. +25.3%, p = 0.123 for goal AUC; +3.4% vs. -25.1%, p = 0.174 for busulfan dose increase). Time to engraftment, progression-free survival, and overall survival were not different between dosing groups (p > 0.05). No patient experienced busulfan-related toxicity.
Conclusions:
Further prospective studies are warranted to elucidate which weight is most likely to achieve goal AUC and subsequent optimal patient outcomes.
Related Concept Videos
Drug Dosing in Renal Diseases: Dose Adjustments Based on Drug Clearance and Elimination Rate Constant
Drug Dosing: Infants and Children
Dosage Regimens: Partial Pharmacokinetic Parameters
Renal Failure: Dose Adjustments
Reduced renal clearance and elimination rate are common outcomes of renal impairment. These alterations lead to a prolonged elimination half-life and an altered apparent volume of distribution for drugs. As a result, dosage adjustments are typically necessary to maintain optimal drug levels in the body.
However, dosage adjustments...
Dosage Regimen: Individualization
IV Infusion to Oral Dosing: Conversion Methods

