Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39134959›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2024

Clinical and safety outcomes of BeEAM (Bendamustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) versus CEM (Carboplatin, Etoposide, Melphalan) in lymphoma patients as a conditioning regimen before autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Mohamed A Eltelbanei, Noha A El-Bassiouny, Mahmoud Salah Abdalla, Mohamed Khalaf, Rehab H Werida

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05813132 (BeEAM), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05813132 nacompletednot on this map

BeEAM (Bendamustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) Versus CEM (Carboplatin, Etoposide, Melphalan) in Lymphoma Patients as a Conditioning Regimen Before Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

TypeinterventionalSponsorRehab WeridaRan2022 to 2023Enrolled58ConditionsLymphomaArmsBEAM Protocol, CEM protocol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Mohamed A EltelbaneiSenior Clinical Pharmacist in Hematology, Oncology, and Stem Cell Transplantation at International Medical Center (IMC) Hospital, Clinical pharmacy & pharmacy practice master candidate at Faculty of pharmacy, Damanhour University, Cairo, Egypt. mohamedalieltelbaney@gmail.com.
Noha A El-BassiounyClinical Pharmacy & Pharmacy Practice Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Damanhour University, Damanhour, 22514, Egypt.
Mahmoud Salah AbdallaHematology& BMT Department at International Medical Center (IMC) Hospital, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed KhalafConsultant of Hematology & BMT Department at Maadi Military Hospital, Cairo, Egypt. mhkhalaf@hotmail.com.
Rehab H WeridaClinical Pharmacy & Pharmacy Practice Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Damanhour University, Damanhour, 22514, Egypt. rehabwrieda@pharm.dmu.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5983-3993

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a pivotal treatment for lymphoma patients. The BeEAM regimen (Bendamustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, Melphalan) traditionally relies on cryopreservation, whereas the CEM regimen (Carboplatin, Etoposide, Melphalan) has been optimized for short-duration administration without the need for cryopreservation. This study rigorously compares the clinical and safety profiles of the BeEAM and CEM regimens.

methodsA controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted with 58 lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT at the International Medical Center (IMC) in Cairo, Egypt. Patients were randomly assigned to either the BeEAM (n = 29) or CEM (n = 29) regimen, with an 18-month follow-up period. Clinical and safety outcomes were meticulously compared, focusing on time to engraftment for neutrophils and platelets, side effects, length of hospitalization, transplant-related mortality (TRM), and survival rates.

resultsThe findings demonstrate a significant advantage for the CEM regimen. Neutrophil recovery was markedly faster in the CEM group, averaging 8.5 days compared to 14.5 days in the BeEAM group (p < 0.0001). Platelet recovery was similarly expedited, with 11 days in the CEM group versus 23 days in the BeEAM group (p < 0.0001). Hospitalization duration was substantially shorter for CEM patients, averaging 18.5 days compared to 30 days for those on BeEAM (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in the CEM group at 96.55% (95% CI: 84.91-99.44%) compared to 79.31% (95% CI: 63.11-89.75%) in the BeEAM group (p = 0.049). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also notably superior in the CEM group, at 86.21% (95% CI: 86.14-86.28%) versus 62.07% (95% CI: 61.94-62.20%) in the BeEAM group (p = 0.036).

conclusionThe CEM regimen might demonstrate superiority over the BeEAM regimen, with faster neutrophil and platelet recovery, reduced hospitalization time, and significantly improved overall and progression-free survival rates. Future studies with longer duration and larger sample sizes are warranted.

trial registrationThis study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05813132 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05813132 ). (The first submitted registration date: is March 16, 2023).

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBendamustine HydrochlorideCarboplatinCytarabineEtoposideHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationLymphomaMelphalanTransplantation, AutologousTransplantation ConditioningAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBendamustine HydrochlorideCarboplatinCytarabineEtoposideMelphalanAutologous transplantationBeEAM protocolCEM protocolDMSOLymphomaNon-cryopreservation

Identifiers

PMID39134959
PMCPMC11320894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.