High-dose Bendamustine-EAM followed by autologous stem cell rescue results in long-term remission rates in lymphoma patients, without renal toxicity

Early Toxicity and Efficacy of Four Different Conditioning Regimens for Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Patients With Lymphoma: Impact of Drug Shortages in a Resource-Constrained Country

High-dose therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT) remains a viable consolidation strategy for a subset of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) lymphomas. BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan) is widely recognized as the predominant conditioning regimen due to its satisfactory efficacy and tolerability. Nevertheless, shortages of carmustine and melphalan have compelled clinicians to explore alternative conditioning regimens. The aim of this study was to compare the toxicity and transplant outcomes following BEAM, CBV (carmustine, etoposide, cyclophosphamide), BuMel (busulfan, melphalan), and BendaEAM (bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan). We retrospectively analyzed data from 213 patients (CBV 65, BuMel 42, BEAM 68, BendaEAM 38) with R/R lymphomas undergoing AHCT between 2014 and 2020. Multivariate models were employed to evaluate toxicity and transplant outcomes based on conditioning type. Among grade III to IV toxicities, oral mucositis was more frequently observed with BuMel (45%) and BendaEAM (24%) compared to BEAM (15%) and CVB (6%, P ≤ .001). Diarrhea was more common with BendaEAM (42%) and less frequent with BuMel (7%, P = .01). Acute kidney injury was only found after BendaEAM (11%). Febrile neutropenia and infectious complications were more frequent following BendaEAM. Frequencies of other treatment-related toxicities did not significantly differ according to conditioning type. BendaEAM (odds ratio [OR] 3.07, P = .014) and BuMel (OR 4.27, P = .002) were independently associated with higher grade III to IV toxicity up to D+100. However, there were no significant differences in relapse/progression, nonrelapse mortality, progression-free survival, or overall survival among the four regimens. BuMel and BendaEAM were associated with a higher rate of grade III to IV toxicity. Carmustine-based regimens appeared to be less toxic and safer; however, there were no significant differences in transplant outcomes. The utilization of alternative preparative regimens due to drug shortages may potentially lead to increased toxicity after AHCT for lymphoma.

BendaEAM versus BEAM as conditioning regimen for ASCT in patients with relapsed lymphoma (BEB): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial

Background

Replacement of carmustine (BCNU) in the BEAM regimen (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) with bendamustine (BendaEAM) before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is feasible in lymphoma. However, randomised trials are lacking. Here, we present the first trial addressing this topic.

Methods

This multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study (BEB-trial) conducted at four haematological centres in Austria and Switzerland compares BEAM with BendaEAM in patients with relapsed lymphoma. Both regimens were administered intravenously before ASCT, in BEAM according to the standard protocol (300 mg/m2 BCNU on day -6), in BendaEAM, BCNU was replaced by 200 mg/m2 bendamustine given on days -7 and -6. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years and had mantle cell lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or follicular lymphoma in first or second remission or chemosensitive relapse. The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate whether replacement of BCNU by bendamustine reduces lung toxicity, defined as a decrease of the diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide by at least 20% at three months after ASCT. Data analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02278796, and is complete.

Findings

Between April 20, 2015, and November 28, 2018, 108 patients were enrolled; of whom 53 were randomly assigned to receive BendaEAM (36 male, 17 female) and 55 to receive BEAM (39 male, 16 female). All patients engrafted rapidly. Lung toxicity did not differ between groups (BendaEAM: n = 8, 19.5%; BEAM: n = 11, 25.6%; risk difference = -6.1%: 95% confidence interval: -23.9% to 11.7%). Acute toxicities of at least grade 3 were comparable in both groups (BendaEAM: 35.8%, BEAM: 30.9%). Overall survival (BendaEAM: 92.5%, BEAM: 89.1%) and complete remission (BendaEAM: 76.7%, BEAM: 74.3%) after 1 year (median follow-up: 369 days) were similar. No difference in quality of life was observed.

Interpretation

Results were similar for both regimens in terms of survival and response rates. A phase 3 non-inferiority study is required to investigate whether BendaEAM can be considered as an alternative to BEAM.

Funding

Mundipharma.

Autologous Stem Cell Transplant in Lymphoma Using a Noncryopreserved Platform: An Adapted Sequential Conditioning Maintaining Dose Intensity Does not Affect Transplantation Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hematopoietic autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a validated therapeutic strategy for lymphoma treatment and precise well-tolerated conditioning. Several conditioning methods are available, but the most commonly used are CVB, BEAM, and ICE, which are conventionally administered in 6 to 7 days. Since 2015, our program has moved toward noncryopreserved platforms that require concise times; therefore, we have modified the conditioning by reducing it to 4 to 5 days. In this study, we show our experience.

METHODS

We compared ASCT performed in our program before and after 2015 in lymphoma patients. Between 2000 and 2014 and from 2015 to 2022, we performed 46 and 61 ASCT procedures, respectively.

RESULTS

Since 2015, we observed a greater number of infused stem cells, fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (60% vs. 37% P = .008), shorter hospitalizations (30 vs. 18 days P = .001), faster engraftment (20 vs. 14 days P = .001) and better progression-free survival (72 vs. 44 months P = .002). Additionally, a prolonged overall survival was observed at these results, and this prolonged survival is difficult to interpret due to the short follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, conditioning adjusted for a noncryopreserved strategy offers at least similar or even better results than the cryopreserved strategy. Prospective studies are warranted.

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.

Combining BeEAM with Brentuximab Vedotin for High-Dose Therapy in CD30 Positive Lymphomas before Autologous Transplantation-A Phase I Study

The prognosis for patients with CD30+ lymphomas (Hodgkin lymphoma and various T-cell lymphomas) relapsing after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is critical. Brentuximab vedotin (BV), an ADC targeting CD30, is an obvious candidate for inclusion into high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) regimens to improve outcomes. This single center phase I trial investigated 12 patients with CD30+ lymphoma (AITL: n = 5; relapsed HL: n = 7; median of two previous treatment lines) undergoing ASCT. In a 3 + 3 dose escalation design, 12 patients received a single BV dose at three dose levels (DL) (0.9/1.2/1.8 mg/kg b.w.) prior to standard BeEAM. All patients were treated as planned; no dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred at DL 1 and 2. At DL 3, one DLT (paralytic ileus, fully recovering) occurred. Grade III febrile neutropenia occurred in one patient, and two others had septic complications, all fully recovering. Median hospitalization was 23 days. Hematologic recovery was normal. Six of twelve (50%) patients achieved CR. PFS and OS at 1 year were 67% (n = 8/12) and 83% (n = 10/12), respectively. The addition of brentuximab to standard BeEAM HDCT seems to be safe. We observed a CR rate of 75% post-ASCT in a highly pretreated population. The efficacy of this novel HDCT combination with BV at a 1.8 mg/kg dose level needs to be explored in larger studies.

BeEAM conditioning regimen is a safe, efficacious and economical alternative to BEAM chemotherapy

In many stem cell transplant centres, BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine and melphalan (BEAM) high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) has been replaced by the more economic and available bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan (BeEAM) regimen. However, there is a paucity of information on the efficacy and safety of BeEAM HDCT. We describe our experience with BeEAM HDCT in terms of safety, efficacy and cost-savings. We compare overall and progression-free survival to a cohort of patients previously transplanted at our institution with the older BEAM regimen. We performed a retrospective chart review of 41 lymphoma patients undergoing BeEAM HDCT at the Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan between 2015 and 2019 to elicit regimen safety in the first 100 days post-transplant. Furthermore, we calculated overall and progression-free survival and constructed corresponding Kaplan-Meier curves, comparing the results to a historical cohort of BEAM patients (n = 86). Finally, we conducted an economic analysis using the financials available at our centre's pharmacy. With regards to BeEAM HDCT, we report a 100-day transplant-related mortality of 2.4%. Additionally, we report acceptable rates of typhlitis (27%), grade III-IV mucositis (4.9%) and grade III-IV nephrotoxicity (2.4%). In terms of overall and progression-free survival, we found no statistical difference between BeEAM and BEAM (p = 0.296; 0.762, respectively). Finally, our economic analysis revealed a net savings of $21,200 CAD per transplant when BeEAM is used in replacement of BEAM. The acceptable safety profile of BeEAM and its comparable efficacy to BEAM are encouraging for the perseverance of this cost-effective HDCT regimen.

Sequential intensive chemotherapy followed by autologous or allogeneic transplantation for refractory lymphoma

We evaluate the safety of bendamustine as a bridge to stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma and residual disease after salvage therapy. Thirty-four subjects without complete responses (CR) received bendamustine 200 mg/m²/day for 2 days followed 14 days later by SCT. Sixteen subjects in partial remission (PR) with maximal FDG-PET SUVs ≤8 prior to bendamustine received autologous SCT, while 13 with suboptimal responses were allografted. Five subjects did not proceed to transplant. No bendamustine toxicities precluded transplantation and no detrimental effect on engraftment or early treatment-related mortality (TRM) was attributable to bendamustine. At 1 year, 75% of auto-recipients and 31% of allo-recipients were alive with CR. Two subjects in the autologous arm developed therapy-related myeloid neoplasia (t-MN). In conclusion, a bendamustine bridge to SCT can be administered without early toxicity to patients with suboptimal responses to salvage chemotherapy. However this approach may increase the risk of t-MN. (NCT02059239).Supplemental data for this article is available online at here.

Bendamustine-EAM versus BEAM regimen in patients with mantle cell lymphoma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation in the frontline setting: a multicenter retrospective study from Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) centers

The combination of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) as conditioning regimen prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the standard of care for patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who are eligible for transplantation. The replacement of carmustine with bendamustine (BeEAM) was described as a promising alternative in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the BeEAM with the BEAM regimen in MCL patients in the frontline setting. Sixty and 108 patients were included in the BeEAM and the BEAM groups, respectively. At 3 years, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in the BeEAM than in the BEAM group (84% [73-96] vs. 63% [51-79], p = 0.03). The overall survival was not statistically different between the two groups (p = 0.2). In multivariable analysis, BeEAM regimen remained associated with higher PFS (HR = 0.377, 95% CI, 0.146-0.970; p = 0.043). Subgroup analyses in patients treated with prior rituximab-aracytine induction alone showed that BeEAM improved the PFS compared with BEAM regimen (p = 0.04). Despite the high rate of acute renal failure KDIGO III (32%), treatment-related mortality was not increased with the BeEAM regimen. A prospective randomized trial will be necessary to confirm the beneficial effect of the BeEAM regimen in MCL patients undergoing ASCT.