BEP Versus BEAM Conditioning for Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Relapsed Lymphoma. A Single Center Retrospective Review of Two Contemporaneous Cohorts
Authors: Caimi Paolo F. , Rosko Ashley , Fu Pingfu , Salman Huda S. , Kindwall-Keller Tamila L. , Cooper Brenda W. , Lazarus Hillard M. 
Published: October 2019

Abstract 2019

High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) has been shown to result in better outcomes than conventional salvage chemotherapy for treatment of relapsed Hodgkin (Lancet 2002;359:2065–71) and non – Hodgkin lymphoma patients (N Engl J Med 1995;333:1540–5).

The relative efficacy of different conditioning regimens is still uncertain. Our center has had extensive experience with BEP, consisting of BCNU (600mg/m2), etoposide (2400mg/m2) and cisplatin (200mg/m2) (Lazarus HM, J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1682–9) with more than 150 patients transplanted using this conditioning regimen. We have observed it to be efficacious and associated with a low incidence of transplant-related mortality (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2005;11:13–22). The purpose of this analysis is to compare the outcomes of patients transplanted with BEP with a contemporaneous cohort of patients transplanted with BEAM (BCNU 300mg/m2, etoposide 800mg/m2, cytarabine 1600mg/m2, melphalan 140 mg/m2).

We performed a retrospective analysis of 55 consecutive relapsed lymphoma patients who had either BEAM or BEP preparative therapy for AHCT between 2005 and 2010 at our institution. Given the potential for nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity of cisplatin, patients were selected to receive BEAM if they had previous renal dysfunction (any elevation of serum creatinine) or had previous hearing loss. All patients received corticosteroids for prophylaxis of BCNU – induced pneumonitis.

The Mann – Whitney test was used for analysis of continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for categorical data, while survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan – Meier method.

Twenty-four patients received BEAM and 31 received BEP. The median age was higher in BEAM-treated patients (51 vs. 43 years, p = 0.0392). Other baseline characteristics were comparable between both cohorts: gender (male 54 vs. 58%, p = 0.791); diagnosis (NHL 75 vs. 77.4%, p = 1.000); status of disease at transplant (partial remission or worse 33.3 vs. 35.5%, p = 1.000); median number of previous therapies (2 in both groups, p = 0.51). The rate of non-renal comorbidities was higher in the BEAM cohort, but the difference was not statistically significant (45.8 vs. 32.3%, p = 0.403). The median CD34 cell dose was similar in both groups (6.252 x106 vs. 6.475 x106 CD34 cells/μL, p = 0.842).

The rate of complications, including bacteremia, other infections, mucositis, diarrhea and renal dysfunction were not statistically different (Table 1). The small sample size may have prevented us from observing a statistical difference in cardiac toxicity.Table 1.Complications observed after BEAM or BEP conditioning for Autologous Hematopoietic CellBEAM (%)BEP (%)Bacteremia45.835.5p = 0.580Non – bacteremic infections37.541.9p = 0.787Mucositis54.258.1p = 0.791Diarrhea79.164.5p = 0.370Increase in serum creatinine > 50%12.516.1p = 1.000Cardiac complications16.73.2p = 0.153BCNU pneumonitis4.26.4p = 1.000

The median follow up time for the whole cohort was 31 months (28 vs. 34 months, p 0.267). Relapse free survival (RFS) after 36 months was 81.1% and 82.9% for BEAM and BEP, respectively (p = 0.693) (Figure 1). Overall survival at 24 months was 89.6% for BEAM and 90.8% for BEP (p = 0.371) (Figure 2). Among patients transplanted in partial response or worse, the median RFS was 57 months after BEAM and 66 months after BEP (p = 0.3173). There were no deaths in the first 100 days after transplant for both cohorts. There were no differences in the median number of days from hematopoietic cell infusion to discharge (12.5 vs. 12.0 days, p = 0.600) or achievement of ANC >500/μL (10 days for both cohorts, p = 0.415).

In conclusion, BEP conditioning achieved comparable engraftment, toxicity and survival outcomes to those achieved by BEAM for treatment of relapsed lymphoma patients. BEP is therefore a valid alternative for treatment of this patient population. The BCNU dose in BEP is twice that in BEAM, but we continue to observe limited rates of BCNU – induced pneumonitis. BEP may be preferable over BEAM in patients with underlying cardiac comorbidity. Longer follow up and prospective trials will help in identifying variables that aid in the selection of patients for the most appropriate conditioning regimen.

Disclosures:

No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.