All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the Lymphoma Coalition.

The Lymphoma Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

Introducing

Now you can personalise
your Lymphoma Hub experience!

Bookmark content to read later

Select your specific areas of interest

View content recommended for you

Find out more
  TRANSLATE

The Lymphoma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Lymphoma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Lymphoma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.

The Lymphoma & CLL Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Beigene and Roche, and supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Lilly, Pfizer, and Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC View funders.

2018-11-23T19:48:18.000Z

Safety and efficacy of BEAC conditioning in HL and NHL

Nov 23, 2018
Share:

Bookmark this article

A retrospective analysis on the safety and efficacy of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and cyclophosphamide (BEAC) conditioning in autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) in both Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), was recently published in Bone Marrow Transplantation, by Ioanna Sakellari from George Papanikolaou Hospital, Thessaloniki, GR, and colleagues.

Finding the safest and most efficient AHCT conditioning regimen is crucial in lymphomas. Carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) is the most frequently used conditioning in NHL and HL. Nevertheless, availability issues with melphalan and carmustine have led to the introduction of BEAC and busulfan EM (BuEM), respectively, as potential replacements. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the efficacy and safety of BEAC versus BuEM in both NHL and HL patients.

Study design

  • N = 100 patients, who received either BEAC (n = 33) between 2016–2017, or BuEM (n =67) between 2011–2013, at the investigators’ center
  • Dosing:
    • BEAC:
      • B: 300 mg/m2
      • E: 800 mg/m2
      • A: 800 mg/m2
      • C: 140 mg/kg
    • BuEM:
      • Bu: 9.6 mg/kg
      • E: 800 mg/m2
      • M: 140 mg/m2
    • No differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups (BEAC vs BuEM)
    • Days of neutropil and platelet engraftment or transfusion needs were similar between the groups (P = 0.657, P = 0.572, and P =0.114, respectively)

Key findings

  • At more than 100 days follow-up:
    • The amount of patients receiving additional therapy after AHCT were similar in both groups (P = 0.492)
    • No significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS; P = 0.301) or non-relapse mortality (NRM; P = 0.495) rates between the groups
  • At a median follow-up of 22.7 months (range, 2.1–29.8) for BEAC and 44.9 months (2.3–77.1) for BuEM:
    • Two-year OS: 75.7% (BEAC) vs1% (BuEM) [P = 0.301]
    • Two-year cumulative NRM incidence: 4.3% (BEAC) vs6% (BuEM) [P = 0.495]
  • Multivariate analysis revealed that HL diagnosis (P = 0.001) and pre-transplant chemosensitive disease (P = 0.005) were independent OS predictors
  • The sole independent predictor of NRM was pre-transplant chemosensitive disease (P < 0.001)

Safety

  • BEAC patients had significantly lower infection rates (51.5%) than those in the BuEM group (91%; P < 0.001)
  • BEAC patients presented with significantly lower World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3–4 mucositis than those in the BuEM group (P < 0.001)
  • BEAC patients presented with significantly lower gastrointestinal and liver toxicity than those in the BuEM group (P = 0.025 and P = 0.013, respectively)

The results of this retrospective analysis indicate that BEAC is a safer AHCT conditioning regimen than BuEM in HL and NHL patients. Both BEAC and BuEM resulted in similar outcomes in NHL and HL patients, therefore further supporting the authors’ recommendation for using BEAC as an alternative conditioning regimen in lymphomas.

  1. Sakellari I. et al. BEAC (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and cyclophosphamide) in autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation: a safe and effective alternative conditioning regimen for Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018 Nov 8. DOI: 10.1038/s41409-018-0395-y. [Epub ahead of print]

Understanding your specialty helps us to deliver the most relevant and engaging content.

Please spare a moment to share yours.

Please select or type your specialty

  Thank you

Your opinion matters

HCPs, what is your preferred format for educational content on the Lymphoma Hub?
44 votes - 79 days left ...

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to lymphoma & CLL delivered to your inbox