ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Efficacy of BEAM versus BeEAM conditioning regimens in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a retrospective single-center study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The BEAM regimen (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) is the standard conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Due to global carmustine shortages, bendamustine-based BeEAM has been proposed as an alternative. This study compared clinical outcomes between BEAM and BeEAM regimens in DLBCL patients undergoing auto-HSCT. A retrospective analysis of 60 consecutive DLBCL patients undergoing auto-HSCT (2019-2024) was conducted. Patients received either BEAM (n=45) or BeEAM (n=15) conditioning. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment response. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. The BEAM group demonstrated significantly superior 3-year PFS (88.7% vs. 75.8%, p=0.024) and OS (95.3% vs. 68.9%, p=0.017) compared to BeEAM. In consolidation patients (n=50), BEAM showed numerically better PFS (89.5% vs. 81.8%, p=0.25) and OS (94.5% vs. 80.8%, p=0.069). Among patients with a pre-transplant complete response (n=52), BEAM showed significantly improved 3-year OS (94.2% vs. 68.9%, p=0.04) and numerically better PFS (86.1% vs. 75.8%, p=0.059). All patients engrafted successfully with comparable neutrophil and platelet recovery. The complete response rate improved from 86.7% (52/60) pre-transplant to 100% (60/60) post-transplant. In summary, BEAM may be associated with better outcomes than BeEAM in this cohort. However, due to the limited sample size, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory, and larger prospective studies are needed to validate these observations.
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.