Abstract
BackgroundHigh-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) is a standard treatment for relapsed/refractory lymphoma patients. Yet, the widespread use of BEAM is hindered by carmustine accessibility. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of PEAM (Cisplatin, Etoposide, Cytarabine, and Melphalan) versus BEAM in auto-HSCT for Hodgkin (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective single-center study of adult lymphoma patients who received PEAM or BEAM pretransplant conditioning between January 2004 to December 2022, comparing efficacy and safety outcomes. ResultsAmong 143 patients (median age of 33 years, 58% males), 55 had HL, and 88 had NHL. The overall response rate (ORR) was 86.7% for PEAM and 72.3% for BEAM, and the relapse rate (RR) was lower for PEAM than BEAM (22.9% vs 45.6%). Median time to relapse (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were not reached for either group. PEAM exhibited a shorter time to both neutrophil (NE) and platelet (PE) engraftment compared to BEAM (10 vs 12 days), with a more tolerable gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity profile. ConclusionsBoth BEAM and PEAM showed similar outcomes, demonstrating comparable efficacy in terms of ORR, TTR, and OS for both HL and NHL patients. However, PEAM-conditioning was associated with a shorter time to engraftment and fewer GI adverse events.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
