%0 Journal Article
%T Clinical and safety outcomes of BeEAM (Bendamustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) versus CEM (Carboplatin, Etoposide, Melphalan) in lymphoma patients as a conditioning regimen before autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation.
%A Eltelbanei MA
%A El-Bassiouny NA
%A Abdalla MS
%A Khalaf M
%A Werida RH
%J BMC Cancer
%V 24
%N 1
%D 2024 Aug 13
%M 39134959
%F 4.638
%R 10.1186/s12885-024-12694-9
%X <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a pivotal treatment for lymphoma patients. The BeEAM regimen (Bendamustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) traditionally relies on cryopreservation, whereas the CEM regimen (Carboplatin, Etoposide, Melphalan) has been optimized for short-duration administration without the need for cryopreservation. This study rigorously compares the clinical and safety profiles of the BeEAM and CEM regimens.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted with 58 lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT at the International Medical Center (IMC) in Cairo, Egypt. Patients were randomly assigned to either the BeEAM (n = 29) or CEM (n = 29) regimen, with an 18-month follow-up period. Clinical and safety outcomes were meticulously compared, focusing on time to engraftment for neutrophils and platelets, side effects, length of hospitalization, transplant-related mortality (TRM), and survival rates.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>The findings demonstrate a significant advantage for the CEM regimen. Neutrophil recovery was markedly faster in the CEM group, averaging 8.5 days compared to 14.5 days in the BeEAM group (p < 0.0001). Platelet recovery was similarly expedited, with 11 days in the CEM group versus 23 days in the BeEAM group (p < 0.0001). Hospitalization duration was substantially shorter for CEM patients, averaging 18.5 days compared to 30 days for those on BeEAM (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in the CEM group at 96.55% (95% CI: 84.91-99.44%) compared to 79.31% (95% CI: 63.11-89.75%) in the BeEAM group (p = 0.049). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also notably superior in the CEM group, at 86.21% (95% CI: 86.14-86.28%) versus 62.07% (95% CI: 61.94-62.20%) in the BeEAM group (p = 0.036).<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>The CEM regimen might demonstrate superiority over the BeEAM regimen, with faster neutrophil and platelet recovery, reduced hospitalization time, and significantly improved overall and progression-free survival rates. Future studies with longer duration and larger sample sizes are warranted.<BR><B>BACKGROUND: </B>This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05813132 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05813132 ). (The first submitted registration date: is March 16, 2023).