B.L. Acosta-Maldonado , A. Padilla-Ortega , O.E. Fernandez-Vargas , L. Rivera-Fong , L.M. Valero-Saldaña , E. Calderon-Flores
{"title":"在基于 BEAM 的自体造血干细胞移植治疗中，顺铂可作为卡莫司汀的可靠替代品。","authors":"B.L. Acosta-Maldonado , A. Padilla-Ortega , O.E. Fernandez-Vargas , L. Rivera-Fong , L.M. Valero-Saldaña , E. Calderon-Flores","doi":"10.1016/j.transproceed.2024.05.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) is a standard treatment for relapsed/refractory lymphoma patients. Yet, the widespread use of BEAM is hindered by carmustine accessibility. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of PEAM (Cisplatin, Etoposide, Cytarabine, and Melphalan) versus BEAM in auto-HSCT for Hodgkin (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a retrospective single-center study of adult lymphoma patients who received PEAM or BEAM pretransplant conditioning between January 2004 to December 2022, comparing efficacy and safety outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among 143 patients (median age of 33 years, 58% males), 55 had HL, and 88 had NHL. The overall response rate (ORR) was 86.7% for PEAM and 72.3% for BEAM, and the relapse rate (RR) was lower for PEAM than BEAM (22.9% vs 45.6%). Median time to relapse (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were not reached for either group. PEAM exhibited a shorter time to both neutrophil (NE) and platelet (PE) engraftment compared to BEAM (10 vs 12 days), with a more tolerable gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity profile.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both BEAM and PEAM showed similar outcomes, demonstrating comparable efficacy in terms of ORR, TTR, and OS for both HL and NHL patients. However, PEAM-conditioning was associated with a shorter time to engraftment and fewer GI adverse events.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23246,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation proceedings","volume":"56 6","pages":"Pages 1446-1453"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cisplatin as a Viable and Secure Alternative to Carmustine in BEAM-Based Conditioning for Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Lymphoma\",\"authors\":\"B.L. Acosta-Maldonado , A. Padilla-Ortega , O.E. Fernandez-Vargas , L. Rivera-Fong , L.M. Valero-Saldaña , E. Calderon-Flores\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.transproceed.2024.05.034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) is a standard treatment for relapsed/refractory lymphoma patients. Yet, the widespread use of BEAM is hindered by carmustine accessibility. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of PEAM (Cisplatin, Etoposide, Cytarabine, and Melphalan) versus BEAM in auto-HSCT for Hodgkin (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a retrospective single-center study of adult lymphoma patients who received PEAM or BEAM pretransplant conditioning between January 2004 to December 2022, comparing efficacy and safety outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among 143 patients (median age of 33 years, 58% males), 55 had HL, and 88 had NHL. The overall response rate (ORR) was 86.7% for PEAM and 72.3% for BEAM, and the relapse rate (RR) was lower for PEAM than BEAM (22.9% vs 45.6%). Median time to relapse (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were not reached for either group. PEAM exhibited a shorter time to both neutrophil (NE) and platelet (PE) engraftment compared to BEAM (10 vs 12 days), with a more tolerable gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity profile.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both BEAM and PEAM showed similar outcomes, demonstrating comparable efficacy in terms of ORR, TTR, and OS for both HL and NHL patients. However, PEAM-conditioning was associated with a shorter time to engraftment and fewer GI adverse events.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transplantation proceedings\",\"volume\":\"56 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1446-1453\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transplantation proceedings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041134524003580\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041134524003580","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：大剂量化疗后进行自体造血干细胞移植（auto-HSCT）是治疗复发/难治性淋巴瘤患者的标准方法。然而，卡莫司汀的可及性阻碍了BEAM的广泛应用。本研究评估了PEAM（顺铂、依托泊苷、胞磷胆碱和美法仑）与BEAM在霍奇金淋巴瘤（HL）和非霍奇金淋巴瘤（NHL）患者自体HSCT中的疗效和安全性：我们对2004年1月至2022年12月期间接受PEAM或BEAM移植前调理的成人淋巴瘤患者进行了一项回顾性单中心研究，比较了疗效和安全性结果：143名患者（中位年龄33岁，58%为男性）中，55人患有HL，88人患有NHL。PEAM的总反应率（ORR）为86.7%，BEAM为72.3%，PEAM的复发率（RR）低于BEAM（22.9% vs 45.6%）。两组的中位复发时间（TTR）和总生存期（OS）均未达到要求。与BEAM相比，PEAM的中性粒细胞（NE）和血小板（PE）移植时间更短（10天 vs 12天），胃肠道（GI）毒性更可耐受：BEAM和PEAM的疗效相似，对HL和NHL患者的ORR、TTR和OS疗效相当。然而，PEAM调理与较短的移植时间和较少的消化道不良反应有关。
Cisplatin as a Viable and Secure Alternative to Carmustine in BEAM-Based Conditioning for Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Lymphoma
Background
High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) is a standard treatment for relapsed/refractory lymphoma patients. Yet, the widespread use of BEAM is hindered by carmustine accessibility. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of PEAM (Cisplatin, Etoposide, Cytarabine, and Melphalan) versus BEAM in auto-HSCT for Hodgkin (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective single-center study of adult lymphoma patients who received PEAM or BEAM pretransplant conditioning between January 2004 to December 2022, comparing efficacy and safety outcomes.
Results
Among 143 patients (median age of 33 years, 58% males), 55 had HL, and 88 had NHL. The overall response rate (ORR) was 86.7% for PEAM and 72.3% for BEAM, and the relapse rate (RR) was lower for PEAM than BEAM (22.9% vs 45.6%). Median time to relapse (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were not reached for either group. PEAM exhibited a shorter time to both neutrophil (NE) and platelet (PE) engraftment compared to BEAM (10 vs 12 days), with a more tolerable gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity profile.
Conclusions
Both BEAM and PEAM showed similar outcomes, demonstrating comparable efficacy in terms of ORR, TTR, and OS for both HL and NHL patients. However, PEAM-conditioning was associated with a shorter time to engraftment and fewer GI adverse events.
期刊介绍：
Transplantation Proceedings publishes several different categories of manuscripts, all of which undergo extensive peer review by recognized authorities in the field prior to their acceptance for publication.
The first type of manuscripts consists of sets of papers providing an in-depth expression of the current state of the art in various rapidly developing components of world transplantation biology and medicine. These manuscripts emanate from congresses of the affiliated transplantation societies, from Symposia sponsored by the Societies, as well as special Conferences and Workshops covering related topics.
Transplantation Proceedings also publishes several special sections including publication of Clinical Transplantation Proceedings, being rapid original contributions of preclinical and clinical experiences. These manuscripts undergo review by members of the Editorial Board.
Original basic or clinical science articles, clinical trials and case studies can be submitted to the journal?s open access companion title Transplantation Reports.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
