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% Cl, 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% Cl. 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. (C) 2018 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

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 / Olivieri, Jacopo; Mosna, Federico; Pelosini, Matteo; Fama, Angelo; Rattotti, Sara; Giannoccaro, Margherita; Carli, Giuseppe; Tisi, Maria Chiara; Ferrero, Simone; Sgherza, Nicola; Mazzone, Anna Maria; Marino, Dario; Calimeri, Teresa; Loseto, Giacomo; Saraceni, Francesco; Tomei, Gabriella; Sica, Simona; Perali, Giulia; Codeluppi, Katia; Billio, Atto; Olivieri, Attilio; Orciuolo, Enrico; Matera, Rossella; Stefani, Piero Maria; Borghero, Carlo; Ghione, Paola; Cascavilla, Nicola; Lanza, Francesco; Chiusolo, Patrizia; Finotto, Silvia; Federici, Irene; Gherlinzoni, Filippo; Centurioni, Riccardo; Fanin, Renato; Zaja, Francesco. - In: BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION. - ISSN 1083-8791. - STAMPA. - 24:9(2018), pp. 1814-1822. [10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.05.018]

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

Lanza, Francesco
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
2018

Abstract

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% Cl, 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% Cl. 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. (C) 2018 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
2018
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 / Olivieri, Jacopo; Mosna, Federico; Pelosini, Matteo; Fama, Angelo; Rattotti, Sara; Giannoccaro, Margherita; Carli, Giuseppe; Tisi, Maria Chiara; Ferrero, Simone; Sgherza, Nicola; Mazzone, Anna Maria; Marino, Dario; Calimeri, Teresa; Loseto, Giacomo; Saraceni, Francesco; Tomei, Gabriella; Sica, Simona; Perali, Giulia; Codeluppi, Katia; Billio, Atto; Olivieri, Attilio; Orciuolo, Enrico; Matera, Rossella; Stefani, Piero Maria; Borghero, Carlo; Ghione, Paola; Cascavilla, Nicola; Lanza, Francesco; Chiusolo, Patrizia; Finotto, Silvia; Federici, Irene; Gherlinzoni, Filippo; Centurioni, Riccardo; Fanin, Renato; Zaja, Francesco. - In: BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION. - ISSN 1083-8791. - STAMPA. - 24:9(2018), pp. 1814-1822. [10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.05.018]
Olivieri, Jacopo; Mosna, Federico; Pelosini, Matteo; Fama, Angelo; Rattotti, Sara; Giannoccaro, Margherita; Carli, Giuseppe; Tisi, Maria Chiara; Ferrero, Simone; Sgherza, Nicola; Mazzone, Anna Maria; Marino, Dario; Calimeri, Teresa; Loseto, Giacomo; Saraceni, Francesco; Tomei, Gabriella; Sica, Simona; Perali, Giulia; Codeluppi, Katia; Billio, Atto; Olivieri, Attilio; Orciuolo, Enrico; Matera, Rossella; Stefani, Piero Maria; Borghero, Carlo; Ghione, Paola; Cascavilla, Nicola; Lanza, Francesco; Chiusolo, Patrizia; Finotto, Silvia; Federici, Irene; Gherlinzoni, Filippo; Centurioni, Riccardo; Fanin, Renato; Zaja, Francesco
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S1083879118302702-main.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate (CCBYNCND)
Dimensione 372.67 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
372.67 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
1-s2.0-S1083879118302702-mmc1.docx

accesso aperto

Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate (CCBYNCND)
Dimensione 881.37 kB
Formato Microsoft Word XML
881.37 kB Microsoft Word XML Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/918879
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 20
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 17
social impact