CEAC (oral semustine, etoposide, cytarabine and cyclophosphamide) vs BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan) conditioning regimen of autologous stem cell transplantation for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a post-hoc, propensity score-matched, cohort study in Chinese patients.

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a salvage therapy for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We have developed a novel conditioning regimen called CEAC (oral semustine 250 mg/m2 d-6, etoposide 300 mg/m2 d-5 ~ d-2, cytarabine 500 mg/m2 d-5 ~ d-2, and cyclophosphamide 1200 mg/m2 d-5 ~ d-2) In lymphoma patients in China. Here, we conducted a study to compare the conventional BEAM regimen with the CEAC regimen in 110 DLBCL patients. Propensity-score matching was performed in a 1:4 ratio (22 patients received BEAM and 88 received CEAC). Our results showed no significant difference in the overall response rate (95% vs 97%, P = 1.000) and complete response rate (66% vs 73%, P = 0.580) between the two cohorts. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS), 5-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) for all patients were 72% (95% CI 62%-82%), 92% (95% CI 86%-97%), and 29% (95% CI 17%-38%), respectively. There was no significant difference in the 5-year PFS (80% vs 70%, P = 0.637), 5-year OS (95% vs 91%, P = 0.496), and 5-year CIR (20% vs 30%, P = 0.733) between cohorts. In terms of safety, the CEAC cohort had a lower incidence rate of grade 1-2 gastrointestinal hemorrhage (P = 0.023) and severe nausea (P = 0.007) compared with the BEAM cohort. In conclusion, the CEAC regimen seems to be a suitable alternative to the BEAM regimen for ASCT in DLBCL patients.

A Comparison of the Conditioning Regimens BEAM and FEAM for Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Lymphoma: An Observational Study on 1038 Patients From Fondazione Italiana Linfomi.

BEAM (carmustine [bis-chloroethylnitrosourea (BCNU)]-etoposide-cytarabine-melphalan) chemotherapy is the standard conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in lymphomas. Owing to BCNU shortages, many centers switched to fotemustine-substituted BEAM (FEAM), lacking proof of equivalence. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 18 Italian centers to compare the safety and efficacy of BEAM and FEAM regimens for ASCT in lymphomas performed from 2008 to 2015. We enrolled 1038 patients (BEAM = 607, FEAM = 431), of which 27% had Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), 14% indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and 59% aggressive NHL. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, stage, B-symptoms, extranodal involvement, previous treatments, response before ASCT, and overall conditioning intensity were well balanced between BEAM and FEAM; notable exceptions were median ASCT year (BEAM = 2011 versus FEAM = 2013, P < .001), Sorror score ≥3 (BEAM = 15% versus FEAM = 10%, P = .017), and radiotherapy use (BEAM = 18% versus FEAM = 10%, P < .001). FEAM conditioning resulted in higher rates of gastrointestinal and infectious toxicities, including severe oral mucositis grade ≥3 (BEAM = 31% versus FEAM = 44%, P < .001), and sepsis from Gram-negative bacteria (mean isolates/patient: BEAM = .1 versus FEAM = .19, P < .001). Response status at day 100 post-ASCT (overall response: BEAM = 91% versus FEAM = 88%, P = .42), 2-year overall survival (83.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.5% to 86.1%) and progression-free survival (70.3%; 95% CI, 67.4% to 73.1%) were not different in the two groups. Mortality from infection was higher in the FEAM group (subhazard ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.88; P = .04). BEAM and FEAM do not appear different in terms of survival and disease control. However, due to concerns of higher toxicity, fotemustine substitution in BEAM does not seem justified, if not for easier supply.

Upfront consolidation combining yttrium-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan and high-dose therapy with stem cell transplantation in poor-risk patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of standard-dose yttrium-90 (Y(90)) ibritumomab tiuxetan combined with high-dose BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan) after first-line induction treatment in young patients with poor prognoses diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00689169). Seventy-five high-risk (≥2 International Prognostic Index [IPI] factors) consecutive DLBCL patients (≤65 years old) in complete remission (CR) or partial remission (PR) after rituximab chemotherapy were treated with Y(90) ibritumomab tiuxetan and BEAM regimen followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The median follow-up was 34 months. Of the 75 patients, 71 underwent ASCT and were eligible for analysis. Median time to reach a neutrophil count of >500/µL and platelet count of >20,000/µL was 11 days. Mucositis ≥3 (51%) occurred in most patients. Other adverse events were similar to those seen with BEAM alone. The overall response rate was 86%; 59 patients (83%) achieved a CR or unconfirmed CR. The 2-year event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival were 79%, 83%, and 91%, respectively. Disease status (CR/PR) and positron emission tomography (PET) findings before transplantation did not predict treatment failure. The IPI (2 versus >2) and maximum tumor diameter of ≥10 cm at diagnosis appeared to be prognosis factors for OS but not for EFS. Adding Y(90) ibritumomab tiuxetan to BEAM is safe and does not increase transplantation-related toxicity. First-line consolidation with Y(90) ibritumomab tiuxetan and high-dose chemotherapy induced high rates of EFS and OS in poor-prognosis patients with DLBCL, regardless of PET status after induction treatment and warrants a randomized study.

Fulminant hepatitis due to very severe sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS/VOD) after autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic veno-occlusive disease, also called sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS/VOD), is a potentially fatal complication of allogeneic or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A plethora of transplant and patient-related risk factors predispose to SOS/VOD and should be taken into account for prognosis assessment as well as for adequate therapeutic intervention. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe the case of a mantle cell lymphoma patient who developed a fulminant hepatitis following oxaliplatin-containing intensive chemotherapy and autologous transplantation. This clinical manifestation was secondary to a very severe SOS/VOD. The patient did not exhibit the usual risk factors and presented a non-classical form with major cytolysis, thus puzzling SOS/VOD diagnosis in this context. CONCLUSION: SOS has been previously reported after oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancers, in particular in patients with colorectal liver metastases. We therefore suspected a potential relationship with oxaliplatin-based regimen as a driver of SOS/VOD in a non-susceptible lymphoma patient. With regards to this case, clinicians and especially intensivists should be aware of this atypical presentation.

Busulfan-containing conditioning regimens are optimal preparative regimens for autologous stem cell transplant in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

We retrospectively examined the outcomes of 56 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) with BEAM/BEAC (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan/cyclophosphamide) or busulfan (Bu)-containing conditioning regimens. The Bu group had lower disease-related mortality and more frequent achievement of complete remission (CR) after ASCT from partial remission (PR) or refractory status before ASCT compared with the BEAM/BEAC group. The estimated 2-year EFS (59.3% vs. 15.0%) and overall survival (OS) (70.2% vs. 42.0%) in pre-ASCT rituximab-exposed patients with DLBCL were higher in the Bu group. In patients with high-risk DLBCL exposed to rituximab with first remission, the Bu group had better EFS (p = 0.004) and OS (p = 0.053) rates, while survival rates for relapsed/refractory patients did not differ between groups. Bu regimens are highly effective for preparing patients with DLBCL with previous exposure to rituximab for ASCT, especially in high-risk patients who achieved a first remission.