BeEAM vs. BEAM: evaluating conditioning regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL

• Published in: Annals of hematology Vol. 103; no. 7; pp. 2455 - 2462
• Main Authors: Wang, Ruiqi, Shangguan, Xinghe, Zhu, Zhenxing, Cong, Dan, Bai, Yuansong, Zhang, Wenlong
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.07.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Hematology; Hospitalization; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Oncology; Stem cell transplantation; Conditioning regimen; Autologous stem cell transplantation; Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
• ISSN: 0939-5555; 1432-0584; 1432-0584
• DOI: 10.1007/s00277-024-05813-w

Purpose To evaluate whether BeEAM is an alternative to BEAM for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods Data of 60 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who underwent ASCT from January 2018 to June 2023 in our center, including 30 patients in the BeEAM group and 30 patients in the BEAM group, were retrospectively analyzed. The time to hematopoietic reconstitution, treatment-related adverse events, number of hospitalization days, hospitalization cost, and survival benefit were compared between the two groups. Results The clinical characteristics of the patients did not significantly differ between the two groups. The median number of reinfused CD34 + cells was 5.06 × 10 6 /kg and 5.17 × 10 6 /kg in the BeEAM and BEAM groups, respectively, which did not significantly different ( p  = 0.8829). In the BeEAM and BEAM groups, the median time to neutrophil implantation was 10.2 and 10.27 days, respectively ( p  = 0.8253), and the median time to platelet implantation was 13.23 and 12.87 days, respectively ( p  = 0.7671). In the BeEAM and BEAM groups, the median hospitalization duration was 30.37 and 30.57 days, respectively ( p  = 0.9060), and the median hospitalization cost was RMB 83,425 and RMB 96,235, respectively ( p  = 0.0560). The hospitalization cost was lower in the BeEAM group. The most common hematologic adverse events were grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, whose incidences were similar in the two groups. The most common non-hematologic adverse events were ≤ grade 2 and the incidences of these events did not significantly differ between the two groups. Median overall survival was not reached in either group, with predicted 5-year overall survival of 72.5% and 60% in the BeEAM and BEAM groups, respectively ( p  = 0.5872). Five-year progression-free survival was 25% and 20% in the BeEAM and BEAM groups, respectively ( p  = 0.6804). Conclusion As a conditioning regimen for relapsed or refractory DLBCL, BeEAM has a desirable safety profile and is well tolerated, and its hematopoietic reconstitution time, number of hospitalization days, and survival benefit are not inferior to those of BEAM. BeEAM has a lower hospitalization cost and is an alternative to BEAM.