Dataset Information

Outcomes of rituximab-BEAM versus BEAM conditioning regimen in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma undergoing autologous transplantation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although rituximab-based high-dose therapy is frequently used in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT), data supporting the benefits are not available. Herein, we report the impact of rituximab-based conditioning on auto-HCT outcomes in patients who have DLBCL.

Methods

Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry, 862 adult DLBCL patients undergoing auto-HCT between 2003 and 2017 using BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) conditioning regimen were included. All patients received frontline rituximab-containing chemoimmunotherapy and had chemosensitive disease pre-HCT. Early chemoimmunotherapy failure was defined as not achieving complete remission (CR) after frontline chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 1 year of initial diagnosis. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

Results

The study cohort was divided into 2 groups: BEAM (n = 667) and R-BEAM (n = 195). On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was seen in OS (P = .83) or progression-free survival (PFS) (P = .61) across the 2 cohorts. No significant association between the use of rituximab and risk of relapse (P = .15) or nonrelapse mortality (P = .12) was observed. Variables independently associated with lower OS included older age at auto-HCT (P < .001), absence of CR at auto-HCT (P < .001) and early chemoimmunotherapy failure (P < .001). Older age (P < .0002) and non-CR pre-HCT (P < .0001) were also associated with inferior PFS. There was no significant difference in early infectious complications between the 2 cohorts.

Conclusion

In this large registry analysis of DLBCL patients undergoing auto-HCT, the addition of rituximab to the BEAM conditioning regimen had no impact on transplantation outcomes. Older age, absence of CR pre auto-HCT, and early chemoimmunotherapy failure were associated with inferior survival.

SUBMITTER: Jagadeesh D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7190439 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHigh-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.MethodsA 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.ResultsDisease 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description:Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens are frequently used for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, the RIC regimen with the best risk/benefit profile for allo-HCT in DLBCL is not known. This is particularly important because patients with DLBCL undergoing allo-HCT in the future would be enriched for those whose lymphoma has failed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy or other novel immunotherapies, with potentially more advanced disease and suboptimal performance scores. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we report the outcomes of the 3 most commonly used allo-HCT RIC regimens in patients with DLBCL. Our analysis included a total of 562 adult DLBCL patients in the CIBMTR registry undergoing allo-HCT using matched related or unrelated donors, between 2008 and 2016. Patients received 1 of 3 RIC regimens: fludarabine/i.v. busulfan ~6.4 mg/kg (Flu/Bu), fludarabine/melphalan 140 mg/m2 (Flu/Mel140), or BCNU/etoposide/cytarabine/melphalan (BEAM). Accordingly, the study group was divided into 3 groups: Flu/Bu (n = 151), Flu/Mel140 (n = 296), and BEAM (n = 115). Relative to Flu/Bu, the Flu/Mel140 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42 to 3.82; P = .001) and BEAM (HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.34 to 4.80; P = .004) regimens were associated with a risk of higher nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Although the risk of relapse with Flu/Mel140 was lower than that with Flu/Bu (HR, .70; 95% CI, .52 to .95; P = .02), this did not translate to improved progression-free survival (HR, 1.04) or overall survival (HR, 1.30). There was a significantly higher risk of grade III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease with BEAM compared with Flu/Bu (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.35; P = .03). In the chemosensitive subset, multivariate analysis showed a significantly higher mortality risk with Flu/Mel140 (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.04; P = .02) relative to Flu/Bu conditioning. In the largest analysis comparing the impact of various RIC regimens on the survival of DLBCL patients undergoing allo-HCT, our results suggest that Flu/Bu is a better RIC choice in less fit or heavily pretreated patients due to lowest NRM risk.

Project description:Large, multicenter studies comparing commonly used reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) approaches in follicular lymphoma (FL) have not been performed. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we report the outcomes of the 2 most commonly used RIC approaches, fludarabine and busulfan (Flu/Bu) versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in FL patients. We evaluated 200 FL patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) who received RIC with either Flu/Bu (n = 98) or FCR (n = 102) during 2008 to 2014. All patients received peripheral blood grafts, and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was limited to calcineurin inhibitor-based approaches. Median follow-up of survivors in the Flu/Bu and FCR groups was 48 months and 46 months, respectively. On univariate analysis in the Flu/Bu and FCR groups, the 3-year rates of nonrelapse mortality (11% versus 11%, P = .94), relapse/progression (18% versus 15%, P = .54), progression-free survival (PFS) (71% versus 74%, P = .65), and overall survival (OS) (73% versus 81%, P = .18) were not significantly different. On multivariate analysis no difference was seen between the FCR and Flu/Bu cohorts in terms of grades II to IV (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], .59 to 1.93; P = .84) or grades III to IV (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, .47 to 2.99; P = .72) acute GVHD, nonrelapse mortality (RR, .83; 95% CI, .38 to 1.82; P = .64), relapse/progression (RR, .99; 95% CI, .49 to 1.98; P = .97), PFS (RR, .92; 95% CI, .55 to 1.54; P = .76), or OS (RR, .70; 95% CI, .40 to 1.23; P = .21) risk. However, RIC with FCR was associated with a significantly reduced chronic GVHD risk (RR, .52; 95% CI, .36 to .77; P = .001). RIC with either Flu/Bu or FCR in patients with FL undergoing allo-HCT provides excellent 3-year OS, with acceptable rates of nonrelapse mortality. FCR-based conditioning was associated with a lower risk of chronic GVHD.