ArticleCancer medicine2024
Gemcitabine-based conditioning compared to BEAM/BEAC conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: No difference in outcomes.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mitoxantrone-Based Novel Conditioning Regimen Leads to Great Survival Benefit in Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Compared to BEAM Regimen.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Gemcitabine-based conditioning compared to BEAM/BEAC conditioning prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: No difference in outcomes.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.