BendaEAM versus BEAM as conditioning regimen for ASCT in patients with relapsed lymphoma (BEB): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

ABSTRACT

Background: Replacement of carmustine (BCNU) in the BEAM regimen (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) with bendamustine (BendaEAM) before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is feasible in lymphoma. However, randomised trials are lacking. Here, we present the first trial addressing this topic. Methods: This multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study (BEB-trial) conducted at four haematological centres in Austria and Switzerland compares BEAM with BendaEAM in patients with relapsed lymphoma. Both regimens were administered intravenously before ASCT, in BEAM according to the standard protocol (300 mg/m2 BCNU on day -6), in BendaEAM, BCNU was replaced by 200 mg/m2 bendamustine given on days -7 and -6. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years and had mantle cell lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or follicular lymphoma in first or second remission or chemosensitive relapse. The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate whether replacement of BCNU by bendamustine reduces lung toxicity, defined as a decrease of the diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide by at least 20% at three months after ASCT. Data analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02278796, and is complete. Findings: Between April 20, 2015, and November 28, 2018, 108 patients were enrolled; of whom 53 were randomly assigned to receive BendaEAM (36 male, 17 female) and 55 to receive BEAM (39 male, 16 female). All patients engrafted rapidly. Lung toxicity did not differ between groups (BendaEAM n = 8, 19.5%; BEAM n = 11, 25.6%; risk difference = -6.1% 95% confidence interval -23.9% to 11.7%). Acute toxicities of at least grade 3 were comparable in both groups (BendaEAM 35.8%, BEAM 30.9%). Overall survival (BendaEAM 92.5%, BEAM 89.1%) and complete remission (BendaEAM 76.7%, BEAM 74.3%) after 1 year (median follow-up 369 days) were similar. No difference in quality of life was observed. Interpretation: Results were similar for both regimens in terms of survival and response rates. A phase 3 non-inferiority study is required to investigate whether BendaEAM can be considered as an alternative to BEAM. Funding: Mundipharma.