Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30718797›Full record

ArticleBone marrow transplantation2019

BEAM or BUCYVP16-conditioning regimen for autologous stem-cell transplantation in non-Hodgkin's lymphomas.

Sara Singer, Nidhi Sharma, Robert Dean, Qiuhong Zhao, Donna Abounader, Patrick Elder, Craig C Hofmeister, Don M Benson, Ashley Rosko, Sam Penza and 13 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

23 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sara SingerDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Nidhi SharmaDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Robert DeanBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Qiuhong ZhaoDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Donna AbounaderBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Patrick ElderDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Craig C HofmeisterDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Don M BensonDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Ashley RoskoDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Sam PenzaDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Leslie AndritsosDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Sumithira VasuDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Samantha JaglowskiDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Basem M WilliamDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Brian BolwellBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Brad PohlmanBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Matt KalaycioBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Deepa JagadeeshBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Brian HillBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ronald SobecksBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Steven M DevineDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Navneet S MajhailBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Yvonne A EfeberaDivision of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA. Yvonne.Efebera@osumc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4163-8823
The Ohio State University · USCleveland Clinic · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) is an effective salvage therapy for patients with relapsed chemosensitive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). However, the optimal conditioning regimen is unclear. Different conditioning regimens prior to AHCT have been used with the two most common being BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan) and BUCYVP16 (busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide). We sought to compare the two regimens for patients with relapsed NHL undergoing AHCT. We retrospectively compared the outcomes of patients treated with BEAM (N = 269) at The Ohio State University and BUCYVP16 (N = 409) at the Cleveland Clinic followed by AHCT between 2006 and 2014. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR). Patient characteristics between the two groups were similar. After a median follow-up of 3.9 years for BEAM and 4.3 years for BUCYVP16 from AHCT, the rate of relapse (p = 0.69), PFS (p = 0.52), and OS (p = 0.11) were similar between the two conditioning regimens. No differences in survival outcomes were seen in disease subtypes. Multivariable analysis showed significant association toward improved OS with BEAM (HR: 1.56, 95% CI 1.16-2.10) (p < 0.01). Even though the study is limited by its retrospective nature and some differences in cohort, the findings indicate that BEAM could serve as an alternative conditioning regimen prior to AHCT for NHL.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarmustineCytarabineFemaleHumansLymphoma, Non-HodgkinMaleMelphalanMiddle AgedPodophyllotoxinRetrospective StudiesStem Cell TransplantationTransplantation, AutologousYoung AdultCarmustineCytarabineMelphalanPodophyllotoxin

Identifiers

PMID30718797
OpenAlexW2911642608

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.