2018
DOI: 10.5114/wo.2018.77046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparable safety profile of BeEAM (bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) as conditioning before autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation

Abstract: IntroductionBEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) is the most frequently used high-dose chemotherapy regimen for patients with lymphoma referred for autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT). Recently, a novel conditioning protocol containing bendamustine instead of carmustine (BeEAM) has been proposed to potentially increase the efficacy.Aim of the studyThe aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the safety profile of BEAM and BeEAM based on single-centre experience.Mater… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
11
0
4

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
(22 reference statements)
2
11
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…We found no difference in OS and PFS between the conditioning regimens in multivariate analysis (p = 0.372, 0.801; respectively). This is consistent with other cohort studies [16][17][18] . We report a 100-day TRM of 2.4% in our BeEAM cohort, indicating acceptable safety and efficacy of the conditioning regimen.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We found no difference in OS and PFS between the conditioning regimens in multivariate analysis (p = 0.372, 0.801; respectively). This is consistent with other cohort studies [16][17][18] . We report a 100-day TRM of 2.4% in our BeEAM cohort, indicating acceptable safety and efficacy of the conditioning regimen.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…This is consistent with previous retrospective studies, however the incidence of nephrotoxicity varies widely in the literature from 1.6 to 48% 6,[15][16][17][18] . The incidence of BeEAM nephrotoxicity reported here is higher than that reported for BEAM in previous cohort studies [16][17][18] . However, the significance of our findings should be interpreted cautiously as all patients with renal impairment were treated expectantly and renal function did not delay the HDCT/ASCT regimen for any patient followed.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…В нашей работе использовался либо классический режим BEAM, либо его модификация BeEAM. Ранее было показано, что обе схемы сопоставимы по эффективности и токсичности [43,44]. BEAC (кармустин, этопозид, цитарабин) применятся с 80-х годов прошлого века, и его модификация BEAM является «золотым стандартом» в настоящее время.…”
Section: таблицаunclassified