LACE versus BEAM conditioning in relapsed and refractory lymphoma transplant: retrospective multicenter analysis of toxicity and efficacy

We compared the lomustine, cytarabine, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (LACE) and BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan (BEAM) conditioning regimens for toxicity, engraftment kinetics, and efficacy in 139 patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant for primary refractory or relapsed lymphoma. Ninety-two patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and 47 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma were enrolled. Seventy-five patients received LACE while 64 received BEAM. The incidence of grade 3-4 oral mucositis (9 vs 38%; P < 0.001) and parenteral nutrition requirement (32 vs 69%; P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the LACE cohort. The median days to myeloid (10 vs 11; P = 0.007) and platelet engraftment (13 vs 15; P = 0.026) were shorter for the LACE cohort. Transplant-related mortality in the LACE group was 9% compared to 13% in patients treated with BEAM (P = NS). The probability of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years for entire cohort was 46 and 41%, respectively. Probability of OS (LACE 46% vs BEAM 47%; P = NS) and PFS (LACE 37% vs BEAM 47%; P = NS) at 5 years was comparable between two groups. We conclude that LACE has better toxicity profile compared to BEAM and results in similar long-term survival in primary refractory or relapsed lymphoma transplant.

Comparison of BEAM vs. LEAM regimen in autologous transplant for lymphoma at AIIMS

BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytrabine, melphalan) is the most widely used high dose chemotherapy regimen for autologous transplant in lymphoid malignancies. We report our early experience with an alternative regimen LEAM where BCNU was replaced with the oral analogue CCNU (lomustine) to tide over the non-availability of BCNU. Fifty one patients of relapsed or refractory lymphoma who received BEAM (n= 34) and LEAM (n= 17) from September 2001 to February 2012 were analyzed. From October 2009 onwards LEAM was used as the conditioning regimen instead of conventional BEAM. Patients in the LEAM group had more chemorefractory disease (35% vs 9%, p = 0.045) and high risk comorbidity score (24% vs 0%, p = 0.019). Grade 3 and 4 oral mucositis (67.6% vs. 64.7%, p = 0.834) and diarrhea (47% vs. 41.1%, p = 0.691) were similar. No difference was noted between the two groups in terms of engraftment, documented infections, antibiotic use, cumulative toxicity risk, length of hospital stay and 100 day transplant related mortality. The estimated 2 year overall survival (61.7% vs. 62.7%, p = 0.928) and event free survival (44.6% vs. 41.1%, p = 0.510) of the regimens BEAM and LEAM respectively were comparable. Thus LEAM appeared equivalent to BEAM in terms of toxicity and efficacy and can be used as an alternative to BEAM.

Conditioning regimens before transplantation in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Substantial progress has been made in understanding the role of autotransplantation in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. At present, the clinical indications for high-dose therapy include patients with relapsed or poor prognosis disease. Hematopoietic reconstitution with peripheral stem cells has rendered transplantation less toxic but the optimal preparative regimen remains to be found. It should combine a high antitumor activity with acceptable toxicity to normal tissues. The literature, on combinations of drugs with or without total body irradiation, was reviewed with regard to this objective. BEAM, CBV and ICE, the most common chemotherapy regimens can be considered safe as they cause low transplant-related morbidity. The combination of fractionated TBI and etoposide or cyclophosphamide was not found to be superior. However, it must be kept in mind that comparisons were made on registry data or retrospectively. In every case, relapse of the residual primary disease argue for the need for more effective strategies such as tandem transplantation or sequential high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell support. To obtain an objective evaluation, these new preparative regimens need to be tested in controlled trials with treatment groups stratified for known prognostic factors.