Back to Search
Start Over
Clinical and safety outcomes of BeEAM (Bendamustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) versus CEM (Carboplatin, Etoposide, Melphalan) in lymphoma patients as a conditioning regimen before autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation.
- Source :
-
BMC cancer [BMC Cancer] 2024 Aug 13; Vol. 24 (1), pp. 1002. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Aug 13. - Publication Year :
- 2024
-
Abstract
- Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a pivotal treatment for lymphoma patients. The BeEAM regimen (Bendamustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) traditionally relies on cryopreservation, whereas the CEM regimen (Carboplatin, Etoposide, Melphalan) has been optimized for short-duration administration without the need for cryopreservation. This study rigorously compares the clinical and safety profiles of the BeEAM and CEM regimens.<br />Methods: A controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted with 58 lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT at the International Medical Center (IMC) in Cairo, Egypt. Patients were randomly assigned to either the BeEAM (n = 29) or CEM (n = 29) regimen, with an 18-month follow-up period. Clinical and safety outcomes were meticulously compared, focusing on time to engraftment for neutrophils and platelets, side effects, length of hospitalization, transplant-related mortality (TRM), and survival rates.<br />Results: The findings demonstrate a significant advantage for the CEM regimen. Neutrophil recovery was markedly faster in the CEM group, averaging 8.5 days compared to 14.5 days in the BeEAM group (p < 0.0001). Platelet recovery was similarly expedited, with 11 days in the CEM group versus 23 days in the BeEAM group (p < 0.0001). Hospitalization duration was substantially shorter for CEM patients, averaging 18.5 days compared to 30 days for those on BeEAM (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in the CEM group at 96.55% (95% CI: 84.91-99.44%) compared to 79.31% (95% CI: 63.11-89.75%) in the BeEAM group (p = 0.049). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also notably superior in the CEM group, at 86.21% (95% CI: 86.14-86.28%) versus 62.07% (95% CI: 61.94-62.20%) in the BeEAM group (p = 0.036).<br />Conclusion: The CEM regimen might demonstrate superiority over the BeEAM regimen, with faster neutrophil and platelet recovery, reduced hospitalization time, and significantly improved overall and progression-free survival rates. Future studies with longer duration and larger sample sizes are warranted.<br />Trial Registration: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05813132 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05813132 ). (The first submitted registration date: is March 16, 2023).<br /> (© 2024. The Author(s).)
- Subjects :
- Humans
Female
Male
Adult
Middle Aged
Young Adult
Adolescent
Treatment Outcome
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation methods
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation adverse effects
Cytarabine administration & dosage
Cytarabine adverse effects
Cytarabine therapeutic use
Etoposide administration & dosage
Etoposide adverse effects
Etoposide therapeutic use
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols therapeutic use
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols adverse effects
Melphalan administration & dosage
Melphalan adverse effects
Melphalan therapeutic use
Lymphoma therapy
Lymphoma mortality
Lymphoma drug therapy
Transplantation, Autologous
Transplantation Conditioning methods
Bendamustine Hydrochloride administration & dosage
Bendamustine Hydrochloride adverse effects
Carboplatin administration & dosage
Carboplatin adverse effects
Carboplatin therapeutic use
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1471-2407
- Volume :
- 24
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- BMC cancer
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 39134959
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12694-9