Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cisplatin as a Viable and Secure Alternative to Carmustine in BEAM-Based Conditioning for Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Lymphoma.
Acosta-Maldonado, B L; Padilla-Ortega, A; Fernandez-Vargas, O E; Rivera-Fong, L; Valero-Saldaña, L M; Calderon-Flores, E.
Afiliação
  • Acosta-Maldonado BL; Department of Hematology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico.
  • Padilla-Ortega A; Department of Hematology, Hospital Civil de Guadalajara "Fray Antonio Alcalde", Guadalajara, Mexico.
  • Fernandez-Vargas OE; Department of Hematology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico.
  • Rivera-Fong L; Department of Hematology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico.
  • Valero-Saldaña LM; Department of Hematology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico.
  • Calderon-Flores E; Department of Hematology, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico. Electronic address: ecalderonf09@yahoo.com.mx.
Transplant Proc ; 2024 Jul 27.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39069458
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) is a standard treatment for relapsed/refractory lymphoma patients. Yet, the widespread use of BEAM is hindered by carmustine accessibility. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of PEAM (Cisplatin, Etoposide, Cytarabine, and Melphalan) versus BEAM in auto-HSCT for Hodgkin (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients.

METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective single-center study of adult lymphoma patients who received PEAM or BEAM pretransplant conditioning between January 2004 to December 2022, comparing efficacy and safety outcomes.

RESULTS:

Among 143 patients (median age of 33 years, 58% males), 55 had HL, and 88 had NHL. The overall response rate (ORR) was 86.7% for PEAM and 72.3% for BEAM, and the relapse rate (RR) was lower for PEAM than BEAM (22.9% vs 45.6%). Median time to relapse (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were not reached for either group. PEAM exhibited a shorter time to both neutrophil (NE) and platelet (PE) engraftment compared to BEAM (10 vs 12 days), with a more tolerable gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity profile.

CONCLUSIONS:

Both BEAM and PEAM showed similar outcomes, demonstrating comparable efficacy in terms of ORR, TTR, and OS for both HL and NHL patients. However, PEAM-conditioning was associated with a shorter time to engraftment and fewer GI adverse events.

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Temas: Geral Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Transplant Proc Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: México

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Temas: Geral Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Transplant Proc Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: México