Autologous noncryopreserved hematopoietic stem cell transplant with CEAM as a modified conditioning regimen in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma: a single-center experience with a new protocol

Autologous stem cell transplant for high-risk neuroblastoma: Achieving cure with low-cost adaptations

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are unable to receive optimal therapy, including autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for high-risk neuroblastoma. Management is intensive and multidisciplinary; survival is often poor. We report a single-center outcome of high-risk neuroblastoma, with adaptations optimized for LMIC.

PROCEDURE

The study was retrospective. Patients were treated on the backbone of the high-risk neuroblastoma study-1 of SIOP-Europe (HR-NBL1/SIOPEN) protocol with ASCT. Adaptations incorporated to decrease cost, requirement for inpatient admission, infections, and faster engraftment included (a) optional outpatient administration for rapid-COJEC, (b) two sessions of stem-cell apheresis, (c) storing stem cells at 2-6°C without cryopreservation for up to 7 days, (d) no central lines, (e) no antibacterial/antifungal/antiviral prophylaxis, (f) omitting formal assessment of cardiac/renal/pulmonary functions before ASCT, and (g) administration of pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on Day +4.

RESULTS

Over 5 years 9 months, 35 patients with high-risk neuroblastoma were treated. Rapid-COJEC was administered over a median duration of 80 days (interquartile range: 77, 83). Conditioning regimen included melphalan (n = 7), oral busulfan-melphalan (Bu/Mel; n = 6), or intravenous Bu/Mel (n = 22). The median viability of stem cells stored for 6 days (n = 28) was 93% (range: 88-99). Two (5.7%) patients had ASCT-related mortality. The 3-year overall and event-free survival was 41% and 39%, respectively. A relapse occurred in 20 (57%) patients. Treatment abandonment was observed in one (3%) patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of therapy in a disciplined time frame along with low-cost adaptations enables to manage high-risk neuroblastoma with low abandonment and an encouraging survival in LMIC. Stem cells can be stored safely without cryopreservation for up to 7 days.

LEAM vs. BEAM vs. CLV Conditioning Regimen for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Malignant Lymphomas. Retrospective Comparison of Toxicity and Efficacy on 222 Patients in the First 100 Days After Transplant, On Behalf of the Romanian Society for Bone Marrow Transplantation

High-dose chemotherapy (HDT) followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is widely used in patients with malignant lymphomas. In Europe over 8,000 ASCTs for lymphoma were performed out of a total of 40,000 transplants according to the European Bone Marrow Transplant (EBMT) activity survey in 2017. ASCT is considered the standard treatment for eligible patients failing to achieve remission after first line chemotherapy or patients with relapsed or refractory lymphomas, including classical Hodkin's lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma, as well as consolidation therapy in first remission in mantle cell lymphoma. BEAM (BCNU/carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan) is the most commonly used conditioning regimen for ASCT in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) lymphomas in Europe, whereas the CBV (cyclophosphamide, BCNU, and etoposide) regimen is also widely used in North America. Recently, concerns regarding BCNU toxicity as well as restricted availability of BCNU and melphalan has determined an increasing number of transplant centers to use alternative conditioning regimens. Currently, only a few comparative studies, most of them retrospective, between different conditioning protocols regarding efficacy and toxicity have been published. Thus, in the current manuscript, we report the experience of 2 transplant centers in ASCT in R/R lymphomas with three types of conditioning: BEAM, CLV (cyclophosphamide, lomustine, etoposide) and LEAM (lomustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan), with the aim to evaluate the results of alternative conditioning regimens using lomustine (LEAM and CLV) and compare them with the standard BEAM regarding early toxicity, engraftment, and transplant related mortality (TRM). All patients developed grade IV neutropenia, anemia with/without transfusion necessity. Severe thrombocytopenia with transfusion requirements is reported in most cases. Median time to platelet engraftment and neutrophil engraftment was 13 days (range) and 10 days (range), respectively. Gastrointestinal toxicity was the most common non-hematologic toxicity after all three conditioning regimens. Oral mucositis in various grades from I to IV was diagnosed in most cases. Other side effects include vomiting, diarrhea, colitis, and skin rash but with low severity grades. For the LEAM arm, one patient died after transplant, before engrafting, one patient didn't achieve platelet engraftment in day 100, one patient developed grade 3 upper gastrointestinal bleeding, one patient died (grade 5 toxicity) with acute renal failure, one patient developed hypoxic events up to grade 4 acute respiratory failure and one patient developed grade 3 itchy skin rash. For the CLV arm, one patient died after transplant, before engrafting, one patient developed grade 3 colitis, one patient with grade 3 hepatic cytolysis, one patient with cardiac toxicity followed by death (grade 5) caused by an acute myocardial infarction with ST elevation and one patient with pulmonary toxicity clinically manifested with grade 3 pleurisy. For the BEAM arm, one patient developed grade 3 cardiac toxicity with sinus bradycardia and afterwards grade 4 with acute pulmonary edema, three patients presented a grade 3 pruritic skin rash and two patients developed grade 3 seizures. In the present study we presented the differences that were observed between BEAM, LEAM, and CLV conditioning regimens offering clinical arguments for an SCT practitioner choice in the ideal situation, but also of choice for alternative regimens in the case that one regimen cannot be used.

Comparable safety profile of BeEAM (bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) as conditioning before autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation

Introduction

BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) is the most frequently used high-dose chemotherapy regimen for patients with lymphoma referred for autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT). Recently, a novel conditioning protocol containing bendamustine instead of carmustine (BeEAM) has been proposed to potentially increase the efficacy.

Aim of the study

The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the safety profile of BEAM and BeEAM based on single-centre experience.

Material and methods

A total of 237 consecutive patients with lymphoma treated with either BEAM (n = 174) or BeEAM (n = 63), between the years 2011 and 2016, were included in the analysis. Clinical characteristics of both groups were comparable. Patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) constituted 49% of the BEAM group and 40% of the BeEAM group.

Results

Median time to neutrophil > 0.5 × 10⁹/l recovery was 10 days in both groups (p = 0.29), while median time to platelet > 50 × 10⁹/l recovery was 13 and 14 days after BEAM and BeEAM, respectively (p = 0.12). The toxicity profile was comparable except for arterial hypertension and severe hypokalaemia, which occurred more frequently after BeEAM compared to BEAM (p = 0.02 and p = 0.004, respectively). The rate of early mortality was 1.7% and 1.6%, respectively. The probabilities of the overall and progression-free survival were comparable for both groups (p = 0.73 and p = 0.55, respectively).

Conclusions

Administration of bendamustine instead of carmustine as part of conditioning does not affect the engraftment or the toxicity profile of the regimen. Therefore, BeEAM may be safely used in patients with lymphoma undergoing autoHCT. Its efficacy requires evaluation in prospective studies.

A Review of Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Lymphoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chemotherapy remains the first-line therapy for aggressive lymphomas. However, 20-30% of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and 15% with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) recur after initial therapy. We want to explore the role of high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for these patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is some utility of upfront consolidation for-high risk/high-grade B-cell lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and T-cell lymphoma, but there is no role of similar intervention for HL. New conditioning regimens are being investigated which have demonstrated an improved safety profile without compromising the myeloablative efficiency for relapsed or refractory HL. Salvage chemotherapy followed by HDT and rescue autologous stem cell transplant remains the standard of care for relapsed/refractory lymphoma. The role of novel agents to improve disease-related parameters remains to be elucidated in frontline induction, disease salvage, and high-dose consolidation or in the maintenance setting.

Advancement in high dose therapy and autologous stem cell rescue in lymphoma

Although advanced stage aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas and Hodgkin’s disease are thought to be chemotherapy-responsive cancers, a considerable number of patients either relapse or never attain a remission. High-dose therapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is often the only possibility of cure for most of these patients. However, many controversial issues still remain with respect to HDT/ASCT for lymphomas, including its role for, the optimal timing of transplantation, the best conditioning regimen and the potential use of localized radiotherapy or immunologic methods to decrease post-transplant recurrence. Recently, mainly due to the unavailability of carmustine, several novel conditioning protocols have been clinically developed, with the aim of improving the overall outcome by enhancing the anti-lymphoma effect and, at the same time, by reducing short and long-term toxicity. Furthermore, the better safety profiles of novel approaches would definitively allow patients aged more than 65-70 years to benefit from this therapeutic option. In this review, we will briefly discuss the most relevant and recent data available regarding HDT/ASCT in lymphomas.

Novel conditioning regimens for Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

SUMMARY Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), in chemosensitive relapsed patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), is associated with superior event-free survival (EFS) compared with salvage chemotherapy alone. BEAM is one of the most commonly used regimens in both HL and NHL because of its acceptable toxicity and high effectiveness. The nonrelapsed mortality (NRM) ranges from 7 to 10% in historical studies. More recent investigations have demonstrated a lower NRM, probably due to various factors such as the use of peripheral blood precursor cells and better support therapy. Recently, in order to reduce the toxicity of carmustine and increase antilymphoma activity, several groups have introduced conditioning regimens similar to BEAM. The incorporation of newer drugs (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies ± radiolabeled) to ‘classic’ BEAM, or the substitution of carmustine with other drugs (thiotepa, bendamustine and fotemustine) may be a valuable strategy in this patient setting. In this review, we will discuss the data available on HDC followed by ASCT in lymphoma using new conditioning regimens, namely second-generation BEAM.

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.

Hematopoietic progenitor cells transplantation for recurrent or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma

INTRODUCTION

Advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) has become a curable disease in the majority of patients. Despite this, about 20% of these patients relapsed or are primary refractory to the first-line treatment and high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous (Auto) hematopoietic progenitor cells transplantation (HPCT) are considered a therapeutic option.

AREAS COVERED

The authors reviewed HDC and HPCT treatment strategies in recurrent or refractory HL patients, with the goal of providing an overview of this approach.

EXPERT OPINION

Patients younger than 60-65 years with relapsed disease or refractory to first-line therapy should receive a second-line chemotherapy, followed by HDC and Auto-HPCT. Progression-free and overall survival results are significantly better when a second remission or a minimal disease status is achieved before Auto-HPCT, and demonstrate that this strategy is able to cure more than half of the advanced HL patients. Myeloablative allogeneic HPCT (Allo-HPCT) has been employed in advanced phases of the disease, but there have been significant concerns due to treatment-related mortality (TRM). The safety of allogeneic transplantation has improved with the use of reduced-intensity allogeneic (RIC-Allo) HPCT strategies. Despite early favorable results, mature results of RIC-Allo available in the literature are consistent in demonstrating a lack of long-term disease control.