Fotemustine plus etoposide, cytarabine and melphalan (FEAM) as a new conditioning regimen for lymphoma patients undergoing auto-SCT: a multicenter feasibility study
BEAM is a widely used conditioning regimen for relapsed/refractory lymphoma patients undergoing auto-SCT. We conducted a multicenter study with an alternative regimen (fotemustine plus etoposide, cytarabine and melphalan (FEAM)) in which BCNU was substituted by the chloroethylnitrosourea fotemustine...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Bone marrow transplantation (Basingstoke) 2010-07, Vol.45 (7), p.1147-1153 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | BEAM is a widely used conditioning regimen for relapsed/refractory lymphoma patients undergoing auto-SCT. We conducted a multicenter study with an alternative regimen (fotemustine plus etoposide, cytarabine and melphalan (FEAM)) in which BCNU was substituted by the chloroethylnitrosourea fotemustine (FTM). Eighty-four patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin's (
n
=20) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (
n
=64) were conditioned with a FEAM regimen (FTM 150 mg/m
2
on days –7, –6, etoposide 200 mg/m
2
and cytarabine 400 mg/m
2
on days –5, –4, –3, –2 and melphalan 140 mg/m
2
on day –1). Patients were evaluated for toxicity and engraftment parameters. Median times to neutrophil (>500 × 10
9
/l) and plt (>20 000 × 10
9
/l) engraftment were 11 and 13 days, respectively. Grade 3 mucositis occurred in 19 patients (23%), while G3 nausea/vomiting and G3 diarrhea were observed in 13 (15%) and 6 (7%) patients, respectively. No severe hepatic, renal or pulmonary toxicity was detected. Seven patients (7%) experienced G4 mucositis, while no other G4 toxicities or unexpected adverse events of any grade were recorded. Transplant-related mortality was 2.4%. We conclude that a FEAM regimen is feasible and safe. Although toxicity and engraftment times compared favorably with BEAM, longer follow-up is needed to evaluate fully its efficacy and long-term safety. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0268-3369 1476-5365 |
DOI: | 10.1038/bmt.2009.318 |