Gemcitabine‐based conditioning compared to BEAM/BEAC conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: No difference in outcomes
Background High‐dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an effective treatment for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The limited availability of carmustine has prompted the exploration of novel alternative conditioning regimens. This study aimed to compare the eff...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cancer medicine (Malden, MA) MA), 2024-01, Vol.13 (2), p.e6965-n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | e6965 |
| container_title | Cancer medicine (Malden, MA) |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Liu, Huimin Zou, Hesong Shan, Dandan Liu, Wei Huang, Wenyang Sui, Weiwei Deng, Shuhui Wang, Tingyu Lv, Rui Fu, Mingwei Xu, Yan Yi, Shuhua An, Gang Zhao, Yaozhong Qiu, Lugui Zou, Dehui |
| description | Background
High‐dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an effective treatment for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The limited availability of carmustine has prompted the exploration of novel alternative conditioning regimens. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of GBM/GBC (gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan or cyclophosphamide) conditioning compared with the standard BEAM/BEAC regimens (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan or cyclophosphamide) for ASCT in patients with NHL.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 231 NHL patients, who underwent ASCT from October 2010 to October 2021 at the Institute of Hematology & Blood Disease Hospital, including both first‐line and salvage settings. This resulted in the inclusion of 112 patients in the GBM/GBC arm and 92 in the BEAM/BEAC arm. Propensity score matching was employed to validate the results.
Results
Disease subtype distribution was similar between the GBM/GBC and BEAM/BEAC groups, with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma being the most common (58.9% vs. 58.7%), followed by PTCL (17.0% vs. 18.5%) and MCL (14.3% vs. 14.1%). At 3 months post‐ASCT, complete response (CR) rates were comparable (GBM/GBC 93.5% vs. BEAM/BEAC 91.1%; p = 0.607). The 4‐year progression‐free survival (78.4% vs. 82.3%; p = 0.455) and 4‐year overall survival (88.1% vs. 87.7%; p = 0.575) were also similar. Both groups exhibited low non‐relapse mortality at 4 years (GBM/GBC 1.8% vs. BEAM/BEAC 3.5%; p = 0.790) with no transplant‐related mortalities reported. The GBM/GBC cohort demonstrated a higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and hepatic toxicity, whereas the BEAM/BEAC group had more frequent cases of bacteremia or sepsis (13 cases vs. 5 in GBM/GBC).
Conclusions
The GBM/GBC regimen is effective and well‐tolerated, offering outcomes that are highly comparable to those in NHL patients conditioned with BEAM/BEAC, as demonstrated in a prognostically matched cohort. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/cam4.6965 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10831922</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2928737159</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4045-65f6649760dbcb25849e674a2d97b88d0b2c8c1cbf8dd58a72266b3e96c258673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kstu1DAUhiMEolXpghdAltjAYjqOk_jCBg2j0iK1ZQNry7dMXRI72E6r2fEIvAXvxZNgM23VIuGFb-fzfy4-VfWyhkc1hGipxNgeYYa7J9U-gm23ILhpnz7Y71WHMV7BPAhEmNTPq72GNi1lDO9Xv07MqGwS0jrz-8dPKaLRQHmnbbLeWbfJh3ESId8mDz4cr86XeVo_RqZgfSh2MSc_-I2fI4jJjECZYQApCBenQbgkygPQZ9Z5l72der35Zh0YtuN06UfxDlx4oG3fm2CcMiCb_JxyACa-qJ71Yojm8HY9qL5-PP6yPl2cfT75tF6dLVRb8sVdj3HLCIZaKok62jKDSSuQZkRSqqFEiqpayZ5q3VFBEMJYNoZhlWFMmoPq_U53muVotDIuhz_wnOEowpZ7Yflji7OXfOOveQ1pUzOEssKbW4Xgv88mJj7aWAohnMmF4YghDAnBqDh7_Q965efgcn6FoqQhdccy9XZHqeBjDKa_j6aGvLQALy3ASwtk9tXD8O_Juw_PwHIH3NjBbP-vxNer8_av5B-4m8AH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2928737159</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gemcitabine‐based conditioning compared to BEAM/BEAC conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: No difference in outcomes</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Liu, Huimin ; Zou, Hesong ; Shan, Dandan ; Liu, Wei ; Huang, Wenyang ; Sui, Weiwei ; Deng, Shuhui ; Wang, Tingyu ; Lv, Rui ; Fu, Mingwei ; Xu, Yan ; Yi, Shuhua ; An, Gang ; Zhao, Yaozhong ; Qiu, Lugui ; Zou, Dehui</creator><creatorcontrib>Liu, Huimin ; Zou, Hesong ; Shan, Dandan ; Liu, Wei ; Huang, Wenyang ; Sui, Weiwei ; Deng, Shuhui ; Wang, Tingyu ; Lv, Rui ; Fu, Mingwei ; Xu, Yan ; Yi, Shuhua ; An, Gang ; Zhao, Yaozhong ; Qiu, Lugui ; Zou, Dehui</creatorcontrib><description>Background
High‐dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an effective treatment for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The limited availability of carmustine has prompted the exploration of novel alternative conditioning regimens. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of GBM/GBC (gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan or cyclophosphamide) conditioning compared with the standard BEAM/BEAC regimens (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan or cyclophosphamide) for ASCT in patients with NHL.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 231 NHL patients, who underwent ASCT from October 2010 to October 2021 at the Institute of Hematology & Blood Disease Hospital, including both first‐line and salvage settings. This resulted in the inclusion of 112 patients in the GBM/GBC arm and 92 in the BEAM/BEAC arm. Propensity score matching was employed to validate the results.
Results
Disease subtype distribution was similar between the GBM/GBC and BEAM/BEAC groups, with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma being the most common (58.9% vs. 58.7%), followed by PTCL (17.0% vs. 18.5%) and MCL (14.3% vs. 14.1%). At 3 months post‐ASCT, complete response (CR) rates were comparable (GBM/GBC 93.5% vs. BEAM/BEAC 91.1%; p = 0.607). The 4‐year progression‐free survival (78.4% vs. 82.3%; p = 0.455) and 4‐year overall survival (88.1% vs. 87.7%; p = 0.575) were also similar. Both groups exhibited low non‐relapse mortality at 4 years (GBM/GBC 1.8% vs. BEAM/BEAC 3.5%; p = 0.790) with no transplant‐related mortalities reported. The GBM/GBC cohort demonstrated a higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and hepatic toxicity, whereas the BEAM/BEAC group had more frequent cases of bacteremia or sepsis (13 cases vs. 5 in GBM/GBC).
Conclusions
The GBM/GBC regimen is effective and well‐tolerated, offering outcomes that are highly comparable to those in NHL patients conditioned with BEAM/BEAC, as demonstrated in a prognostically matched cohort.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-7634</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-7634</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6965</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38348996</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Antigens ; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - adverse effects ; Autografts ; autologous stem cell transplantation ; B-cell lymphoma ; Bacteremia ; Blood diseases ; Blood platelets ; Bone marrow ; Busulfan ; Carmustine - adverse effects ; Chemotherapy ; conditioning regimen ; Cyclophosphamide ; Cyclophosphamide - therapeutic use ; Cytarabine ; Cytarabine - therapeutic use ; Etoposide ; Etoposide - adverse effects ; Gemcitabine ; Granulocytes ; Hematology ; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation - methods ; Humans ; Lymphocytes B ; Lymphoma ; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin - drug therapy ; Melphalan ; Melphalan - adverse effects ; Mucositis ; Neutrophils ; Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma ; non‐Hodgkin lymphoma ; Patients ; Retrospective Studies ; Sepsis ; Stem cell transplantation ; Tomography ; Toxicity ; Transplantation Conditioning - methods ; Transplantation, Autologous - methods</subject><ispartof>Cancer medicine (Malden, MA), 2024-01, Vol.13 (2), p.e6965-n/a</ispartof><rights>2024 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2024 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4045-65f6649760dbcb25849e674a2d97b88d0b2c8c1cbf8dd58a72266b3e96c258673</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8135-4913</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10831922/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10831922/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,1411,11541,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38348996$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liu, Huimin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Hesong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shan, Dandan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Wenyang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sui, Weiwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Shuhui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Tingyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lv, Rui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fu, Mingwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yi, Shuhua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>An, Gang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Yaozhong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qiu, Lugui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Dehui</creatorcontrib><title>Gemcitabine‐based conditioning compared to BEAM/BEAC conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: No difference in outcomes</title><title>Cancer medicine (Malden, MA)</title><addtitle>Cancer Med</addtitle><description>Background
High‐dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an effective treatment for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The limited availability of carmustine has prompted the exploration of novel alternative conditioning regimens. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of GBM/GBC (gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan or cyclophosphamide) conditioning compared with the standard BEAM/BEAC regimens (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan or cyclophosphamide) for ASCT in patients with NHL.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 231 NHL patients, who underwent ASCT from October 2010 to October 2021 at the Institute of Hematology & Blood Disease Hospital, including both first‐line and salvage settings. This resulted in the inclusion of 112 patients in the GBM/GBC arm and 92 in the BEAM/BEAC arm. Propensity score matching was employed to validate the results.
Results
Disease subtype distribution was similar between the GBM/GBC and BEAM/BEAC groups, with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma being the most common (58.9% vs. 58.7%), followed by PTCL (17.0% vs. 18.5%) and MCL (14.3% vs. 14.1%). At 3 months post‐ASCT, complete response (CR) rates were comparable (GBM/GBC 93.5% vs. BEAM/BEAC 91.1%; p = 0.607). The 4‐year progression‐free survival (78.4% vs. 82.3%; p = 0.455) and 4‐year overall survival (88.1% vs. 87.7%; p = 0.575) were also similar. Both groups exhibited low non‐relapse mortality at 4 years (GBM/GBC 1.8% vs. BEAM/BEAC 3.5%; p = 0.790) with no transplant‐related mortalities reported. The GBM/GBC cohort demonstrated a higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and hepatic toxicity, whereas the BEAM/BEAC group had more frequent cases of bacteremia or sepsis (13 cases vs. 5 in GBM/GBC).
Conclusions
The GBM/GBC regimen is effective and well‐tolerated, offering outcomes that are highly comparable to those in NHL patients conditioned with BEAM/BEAC, as demonstrated in a prognostically matched cohort.</description><subject>Antigens</subject><subject>Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - adverse effects</subject><subject>Autografts</subject><subject>autologous stem cell transplantation</subject><subject>B-cell lymphoma</subject><subject>Bacteremia</subject><subject>Blood diseases</subject><subject>Blood platelets</subject><subject>Bone marrow</subject><subject>Busulfan</subject><subject>Carmustine - adverse effects</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>conditioning regimen</subject><subject>Cyclophosphamide</subject><subject>Cyclophosphamide - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Cytarabine</subject><subject>Cytarabine - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Etoposide</subject><subject>Etoposide - adverse effects</subject><subject>Gemcitabine</subject><subject>Granulocytes</subject><subject>Hematology</subject><subject>Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lymphocytes B</subject><subject>Lymphoma</subject><subject>Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin - drug therapy</subject><subject>Melphalan</subject><subject>Melphalan - adverse effects</subject><subject>Mucositis</subject><subject>Neutrophils</subject><subject>Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma</subject><subject>non‐Hodgkin lymphoma</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sepsis</subject><subject>Stem cell transplantation</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Toxicity</subject><subject>Transplantation Conditioning - methods</subject><subject>Transplantation, Autologous - methods</subject><issn>2045-7634</issn><issn>2045-7634</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kstu1DAUhiMEolXpghdAltjAYjqOk_jCBg2j0iK1ZQNry7dMXRI72E6r2fEIvAXvxZNgM23VIuGFb-fzfy4-VfWyhkc1hGipxNgeYYa7J9U-gm23ILhpnz7Y71WHMV7BPAhEmNTPq72GNi1lDO9Xv07MqGwS0jrz-8dPKaLRQHmnbbLeWbfJh3ESId8mDz4cr86XeVo_RqZgfSh2MSc_-I2fI4jJjECZYQApCBenQbgkygPQZ9Z5l72der35Zh0YtuN06UfxDlx4oG3fm2CcMiCb_JxyACa-qJ71Yojm8HY9qL5-PP6yPl2cfT75tF6dLVRb8sVdj3HLCIZaKok62jKDSSuQZkRSqqFEiqpayZ5q3VFBEMJYNoZhlWFMmoPq_U53muVotDIuhz_wnOEowpZ7Yflji7OXfOOveQ1pUzOEssKbW4Xgv88mJj7aWAohnMmF4YghDAnBqDh7_Q965efgcn6FoqQhdccy9XZHqeBjDKa_j6aGvLQALy3ASwtk9tXD8O_Juw_PwHIH3NjBbP-vxNer8_av5B-4m8AH</recordid><startdate>202401</startdate><enddate>202401</enddate><creator>Liu, Huimin</creator><creator>Zou, Hesong</creator><creator>Shan, Dandan</creator><creator>Liu, Wei</creator><creator>Huang, Wenyang</creator><creator>Sui, Weiwei</creator><creator>Deng, Shuhui</creator><creator>Wang, Tingyu</creator><creator>Lv, Rui</creator><creator>Fu, Mingwei</creator><creator>Xu, Yan</creator><creator>Yi, Shuhua</creator><creator>An, Gang</creator><creator>Zhao, Yaozhong</creator><creator>Qiu, Lugui</creator><creator>Zou, Dehui</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8135-4913</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202401</creationdate><title>Gemcitabine‐based conditioning compared to BEAM/BEAC conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: No difference in outcomes</title><author>Liu, Huimin ; Zou, Hesong ; Shan, Dandan ; Liu, Wei ; Huang, Wenyang ; Sui, Weiwei ; Deng, Shuhui ; Wang, Tingyu ; Lv, Rui ; Fu, Mingwei ; Xu, Yan ; Yi, Shuhua ; An, Gang ; Zhao, Yaozhong ; Qiu, Lugui ; Zou, Dehui</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4045-65f6649760dbcb25849e674a2d97b88d0b2c8c1cbf8dd58a72266b3e96c258673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Antigens</topic><topic>Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - adverse effects</topic><topic>Autografts</topic><topic>autologous stem cell transplantation</topic><topic>B-cell lymphoma</topic><topic>Bacteremia</topic><topic>Blood diseases</topic><topic>Blood platelets</topic><topic>Bone marrow</topic><topic>Busulfan</topic><topic>Carmustine - adverse effects</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>conditioning regimen</topic><topic>Cyclophosphamide</topic><topic>Cyclophosphamide - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Cytarabine</topic><topic>Cytarabine - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Etoposide</topic><topic>Etoposide - adverse effects</topic><topic>Gemcitabine</topic><topic>Granulocytes</topic><topic>Hematology</topic><topic>Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lymphocytes B</topic><topic>Lymphoma</topic><topic>Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin - drug therapy</topic><topic>Melphalan</topic><topic>Melphalan - adverse effects</topic><topic>Mucositis</topic><topic>Neutrophils</topic><topic>Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma</topic><topic>non‐Hodgkin lymphoma</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sepsis</topic><topic>Stem cell transplantation</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Toxicity</topic><topic>Transplantation Conditioning - methods</topic><topic>Transplantation, Autologous - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liu, Huimin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Hesong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shan, Dandan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Wenyang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sui, Weiwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Shuhui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Tingyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lv, Rui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fu, Mingwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yi, Shuhua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>An, Gang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Yaozhong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qiu, Lugui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Dehui</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cancer medicine (Malden, MA)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liu, Huimin</au><au>Zou, Hesong</au><au>Shan, Dandan</au><au>Liu, Wei</au><au>Huang, Wenyang</au><au>Sui, Weiwei</au><au>Deng, Shuhui</au><au>Wang, Tingyu</au><au>Lv, Rui</au><au>Fu, Mingwei</au><au>Xu, Yan</au><au>Yi, Shuhua</au><au>An, Gang</au><au>Zhao, Yaozhong</au><au>Qiu, Lugui</au><au>Zou, Dehui</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gemcitabine‐based conditioning compared to BEAM/BEAC conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: No difference in outcomes</atitle><jtitle>Cancer medicine (Malden, MA)</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer Med</addtitle><date>2024-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e6965</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e6965-n/a</pages><issn>2045-7634</issn><eissn>2045-7634</eissn><abstract>Background
High‐dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an effective treatment for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The limited availability of carmustine has prompted the exploration of novel alternative conditioning regimens. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of GBM/GBC (gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan or cyclophosphamide) conditioning compared with the standard BEAM/BEAC regimens (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan or cyclophosphamide) for ASCT in patients with NHL.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 231 NHL patients, who underwent ASCT from October 2010 to October 2021 at the Institute of Hematology & Blood Disease Hospital, including both first‐line and salvage settings. This resulted in the inclusion of 112 patients in the GBM/GBC arm and 92 in the BEAM/BEAC arm. Propensity score matching was employed to validate the results.
Results
Disease subtype distribution was similar between the GBM/GBC and BEAM/BEAC groups, with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma being the most common (58.9% vs. 58.7%), followed by PTCL (17.0% vs. 18.5%) and MCL (14.3% vs. 14.1%). At 3 months post‐ASCT, complete response (CR) rates were comparable (GBM/GBC 93.5% vs. BEAM/BEAC 91.1%; p = 0.607). The 4‐year progression‐free survival (78.4% vs. 82.3%; p = 0.455) and 4‐year overall survival (88.1% vs. 87.7%; p = 0.575) were also similar. Both groups exhibited low non‐relapse mortality at 4 years (GBM/GBC 1.8% vs. BEAM/BEAC 3.5%; p = 0.790) with no transplant‐related mortalities reported. The GBM/GBC cohort demonstrated a higher incidence of grade 3/4 oral mucositis and hepatic toxicity, whereas the BEAM/BEAC group had more frequent cases of bacteremia or sepsis (13 cases vs. 5 in GBM/GBC).
Conclusions
The GBM/GBC regimen is effective and well‐tolerated, offering outcomes that are highly comparable to those in NHL patients conditioned with BEAM/BEAC, as demonstrated in a prognostically matched cohort.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>38348996</pmid><doi>10.1002/cam4.6965</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8135-4913</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2045-7634 |
| ispartof | Cancer medicine (Malden, MA), 2024-01, Vol.13 (2), p.e6965-n/a |
| issn | 2045-7634 2045-7634 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10831922 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Antigens Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols - adverse effects Autografts autologous stem cell transplantation B-cell lymphoma Bacteremia Blood diseases Blood platelets Bone marrow Busulfan Carmustine - adverse effects Chemotherapy conditioning regimen Cyclophosphamide Cyclophosphamide - therapeutic use Cytarabine Cytarabine - therapeutic use Etoposide Etoposide - adverse effects Gemcitabine Granulocytes Hematology Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation - methods Humans Lymphocytes B Lymphoma Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin - drug therapy Melphalan Melphalan - adverse effects Mucositis Neutrophils Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma non‐Hodgkin lymphoma Patients Retrospective Studies Sepsis Stem cell transplantation Tomography Toxicity Transplantation Conditioning - methods Transplantation, Autologous - methods |
| title | Gemcitabine‐based conditioning compared to BEAM/BEAC conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: No difference in outcomes |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T08%3A41%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gemcitabine%E2%80%90based%20conditioning%20compared%20to%20BEAM/BEAC%20conditioning%20prior%20to%20autologous%20stem%20cell%20transplantation%20for%20non%E2%80%90Hodgkin%20lymphoma:%20No%20difference%20in%20outcomes&rft.jtitle=Cancer%20medicine%20(Malden,%20MA)&rft.au=Liu,%20Huimin&rft.date=2024-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e6965&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e6965-n/a&rft.issn=2045-7634&rft.eissn=2045-7634&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/cam4.6965&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2928737159%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2928737159&rft_id=info:pmid/38348996&rfr_iscdi=true |