Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29884850›Full record

ArticleBone marrow transplantation2018

High-dose therapy with BEAC conditioning compared to BEAM conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: no differences in toxicity or outcome. A matched-control study of the EBMT-Lymphoma Working Party.

Stephen Paul Robinson, Ariane Boumendil, Herve Finel, Peter Dreger, Anna Sureda, Olivier Hermine, Silvia Montoto

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Stephen Paul RobinsonUniversity Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. stephen.robinson@ubht.nhs.uk.
Ariane BoumendilThe Lymphoma Working Party EBMT, Paris, France.
Herve FinelThe Lymphoma Working Party EBMT, Paris, France.
Peter DregerUniversity Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Anna SuredaInstitut Catala d'Oncologia, Hospital Duran I Reynals, Barcelona, Spain.
Olivier HermineHopital Necker, Paris, France.
Silvia MontotoSt Bartholomew's Hospital, Bart's Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · FRDuran i Reynals Hospital · ESHeidelberg University · DEHôpital Necker-Enfants Malades · FRSt Bartholomew's Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent shortage of melphalan has prompted the use of alternatives to BEAM (BCNU, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) conditioning for autologous stem cell transplantion (ASCT). The BEAC (BCNU, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Cyclophosphamide) regimen has been employed as a conditioning regimen in lymphoma patients. However, there have been recent concerns about the toxicity of BEAC. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the EBMT database comparing the outcome of patients conditioned using BEAC with a matched cohort of patients conditioned with BEAM. In the BEAC cohort (n = 383), 25 patients died from non-relapse mortality (NRM) events (32% owing to MOF or cardiac toxicity). In the BEAM cohort (n = 766) there were 34 NRM events (23% owing to MOF or cardiac toxicity). The 1-year cumulative incidence of NRM was 4% in the BEAC cohort and 3% in the BEAM group (p = ns). The 2-year relapse/progression rate was 32% with BEAC and 33% with BEAM (p = ns). At 2 years the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 63% and 78% for BEAC and 63% and 77% for BEAM-conditioned patients (p = ns for PFS and OS). The toxicity observed with BEAC conditioning as measured by NRM was similar to that seen with BEAM. The outcomes following BEAC were similar to those seen with BEAM, suggesting that BEAC is a safe conditioning regimen.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsFemaleHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansLymphoma, Non-HodgkinMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTransplantation, AutologousTransplantation ConditioningYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29884850
OpenAlexW2806003957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.