Dose-adjusted bendamustine as a replacement for carmustine in autologous stem cell transplant conditioning for patients with relapsed lymphoma: A retrospective single-center study

Single-center retrospective study assessing the efficacy and safety of BeEAM (bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) as conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

One of the most widely accepted conditioning regimens for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan). However, a recent increase in the cost of carmustine has limited its use bringing our institution to replace carmustine with bendamustine. This observational retrospective single-center study aims to report the efficacy and safety of the BeEAM regimen. 55 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (47%), Hodgkin lymphoma (25%), mantle cell lymphoma (25%), or follicular lymphoma (2%) were included. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 months was 75% and overall survival (OS) was 83%. Treatment-related mortality was 4%. The most common adverse effects were febrile neutropenia (98%), mucositis (72%) and colitis (60%). Our study demonstrated excellent efficacy of the BeEAM regimen. However, the toxicity profile of BeEAM significantly varies from one study to another, and guidelines suggesting optimal dose of bendamustine and supportive care are currently lacking.

BeEAM (Bendamustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) Versus BEAM (Carmustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) as Conditioning Regimen Before Autologous Haematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care for selected patients with refractory/relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and it is also used as first-line clinical consolidation option for some aggressive NHL subtypes. Conditioning regimen prior to ASCT is one of the essential factors related with clinical outcomes post transplant. The conditioning regimen of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) traditionally is considered the standard of care for patients with lymphoma who are eligible for transplantation. Replacement of carmustine with bendamustine (BeEAM) was described as an alternative conditioning regimen in the autograft setting for patients with lymphoma. Several studies have reported inconsistent clinical outcomes comparing BeEAM and BEAM. Therefore, in the lack of well-designed prospective comparative studies, the comparison of BeEAM versus BEAM is based on retrospective trials. To compare the clinical outcomes between BeEAM and BEAM, we performed a meta-analysis of 10 studies which compared the outcomes between BeEAM and BEAM in patients autografted for lymphoma disease (HL or NHL). We searched article titles and compared transplantation with BeEAM versus BEAM in MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane library, and EMBASE database. Here, we report the results of nine main endpoints in our meta-analysis comparing BeEAM and BEAM, including neutrophil engraftment (NE), platelet engraftment (PE), overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse rate (RR), grade 3 mucositis, renal toxicity, and cardiotoxicity. We discovered that the BeEAM regimen was associated with a slightly better PFS [pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.94, P = 0.02], lower RR (0.49, 95% CI, 0.31-0.76, P = 0.002), higher mucositis (3.43, 95% CI, 2.29-5.16, P = 0.001), renal toxicity (4.49, 95% CI, 2.68-7.51, P = 0.001), and cardiotoxicity (1.88, 95% CI, 1.03-3.40, P = 0.03). We also discovered that the two groups had equivalent NE (pooled WMD -0.64, 95% CI, -1.46 to 0.18, P = 0.13), PE (pooled WMD -0.3, 95% CI, -1.68 to 2.28, P = 0.77), OS (0.73, 95% CI, 0.52-1.01, P = 0.07), and NRM (1.51, 95% CI, 0.76-2.98, P = 0.24). The results of this meta-analysis show that the BeEAM regimen is a viable alternative to BEAM. More prospective comparisons between BeEAM and BEAM are required.

Impact of Implementing a Bendamustine-Based Conditioning Regimen on Outcomes of Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Lymphoma while Novel Cellular Therapies Emerge

With the advent of new cellular and targeted therapies, treatment options for relapsed and refractory (r/R) lymphomas have multiplied, and the optimal approach offering the best outcomes remains a matter of passionate debate. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is still considered a treatment option for patients with chemosensitive lymphoma when cure is the expected goal. The myeloablative conditioning regimen preceding the stem cell infusion is considered the effective component of this approach. Carmustine (BCNU)-based preparative regimens, such as BEAM and BEAC, are considered the standard of care and have shown efficacy and low nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Comparative studies between conditioning regimens have failed to identify a better option. After a BCNU drug shortage in Canada followed by a steep increase in price, we elected to substitute BCNU for bendamustine (benda) in the preparative regimen. The purpose of this substitution was to improve response while preserving safety and controlling costs. From May 2015 to May 2018, a total of 131 consecutive lymphoma patients received benda-EAM conditioning. These patients were compared with 96 consecutive patients who received BCNU-based conditioning from January 2012 to May 2015. Apart from conditioning, supportive care measures were the same in the 2 groups. Patients receiving benda were older (55.7 years versus 51.1 years; P = .002). The development of grade ≥3 mucositis was more frequent with benda conditioning (39.5% versus 7.8%; P < .001) leading to a greater requirement for parenteral nutrition (48.9% versus 21.9%; P < .001). A transient creatinine increase >1.5 times the upper limit of normal (15.3% versus 4.2%; P < .008) and intensive care unit admission (6.9% versus 1.1%; P < .029) were more frequent with benda; however, there were no between-group differences in cardiac, pulmonary, or liver toxicity and NRM. With a median follow-up of 48 months for the benda group and 60 months for the BCNU group, benda was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (71% versus 61%; P = .040; hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 2.7) and overall survival (86% vs 71%; P = .0066; HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3 to 5.4) compared with BCNU-based conditioning regimens. While novel therapies emerge, our study demonstrates that benda-EAM is safe and effective and should be considered a valid alternative to BCNU conditioning to improve outcomes of patients with chemosensitive r/R lymphomas undergoing ASCT.