Gemcitabine‐based conditioning compared to BEAM/BEAC conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: No difference in outcomes

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundHigh‐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.