Department of Hematology and Oncology, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130033, China.
Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, 222 Zhongshan Road, Dalian, 116021, China.
Ann Hematol. 2024 Jul;103(7):2455-2462. doi: 10.1007/s00277-024-05813-w. Epub 2024 May 29.
To evaluate whether BeEAM is an alternative to BEAM for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
Data of 60 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who underwent ASCT from January 2018 to June 2023 in our center, including 30 patients in the BeEAM group and 30 patients in the BEAM group, were retrospectively analyzed. The time to hematopoietic reconstitution, treatment-related adverse events, number of hospitalization days, hospitalization cost, and survival benefit were compared between the two groups.
The clinical characteristics of the patients did not significantly differ between the two groups. The median number of reinfused CD34 + cells was 5.06 × 10/kg and 5.17 × 10/kg in the BeEAM and BEAM groups, respectively, which did not significantly different (p = 0.8829). In the BeEAM and BEAM groups, the median time to neutrophil implantation was 10.2 and 10.27 days, respectively (p = 0.8253), and the median time to platelet implantation was 13.23 and 12.87 days, respectively (p = 0.7671). In the BeEAM and BEAM groups, the median hospitalization duration was 30.37 and 30.57 days, respectively (p = 0.9060), and the median hospitalization cost was RMB 83,425 and RMB 96,235, respectively (p = 0.0560). The hospitalization cost was lower in the BeEAM group. The most common hematologic adverse events were grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, whose incidences were similar in the two groups. The most common non-hematologic adverse events were ≤ grade 2 and the incidences of these events did not significantly differ between the two groups. Median overall survival was not reached in either group, with predicted 5-year overall survival of 72.5% and 60% in the BeEAM and BEAM groups, respectively (p = 0.5872). Five-year progression-free survival was 25% and 20% in the BeEAM and BEAM groups, respectively (p = 0.6804).
As a conditioning regimen for relapsed or refractory DLBCL, BeEAM has a desirable safety profile and is well tolerated, and its hematopoietic reconstitution time, number of hospitalization days, and survival benefit are not inferior to those of BEAM. BeEAM has a lower hospitalization cost and is an alternative to BEAM.
评估 BeEAM 是否可替代 BEAM 用于复发或难治性弥漫性大 B 细胞淋巴瘤（DLBCL）患者的自体干细胞移植（ASCT）。
回顾性分析了 2018 年 1 月至 2023 年 6 月期间在我院接受 ASCT 的 60 例复发或难治性 DLBCL 患者的数据，其中 BeEAM 组 30 例，BEAM 组 30 例。比较两组患者造血重建时间、治疗相关不良事件、住院天数、住院费用和生存获益。
两组患者的临床特征无显著差异。BeEAM 组和 BEAM 组患者回输的 CD34+细胞中位数分别为 5.06×10/kg 和 5.17×10/kg，差异无统计学意义（p=0.8829）。BeEAM 组和 BEAM 组中性粒细胞植入的中位时间分别为 10.2 天和 10.27 天（p=0.8253），血小板植入的中位时间分别为 13.23 天和 12.87 天（p=0.7671）。BeEAM 组和 BEAM 组患者的中位住院时间分别为 30.37 天和 30.57 天（p=0.9060），中位住院费用分别为人民币 83425 元和人民币 96235 元（p=0.0560）。BeEAM 组的住院费用较低。最常见的血液学不良事件为≥3 级中性粒细胞减少和血小板减少，两组发生率相似。最常见的非血液学不良事件为≤2 级，两组不良事件发生率无显著差异。两组患者中位总生存期均未达到，BeEAM 组和 BEAM 组的预测 5 年总生存率分别为 72.5%和 60%（p=0.5872）。BeEAM 组和 BEAM 组的 5 年无进展生存率分别为 25%和 20%（p=0.6804）。
BeEAM 作为复发或难治性 DLBCL 的预处理方案，具有良好的安全性和耐受性，其造血重建时间、住院天数和生存获益不劣于 BEAM。BeEAM 的住院费用较低，是 BEAM 的一种替代方案。
