Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Beam and Team Conditioning Regimens for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Lymphoma Patients

Abstract

Background: Conditioning regimens with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) are the mainstays of treatment in lymphoma patients. Although the most frequently used conditioning regimen is the BEAM regimen (Carmustine, Etoposide, Cytarabine, and Melphalan), and alternatives are also used in certain circumstances. The TEAM regimen (carmustine is substituted by the alkylating agent thiotepa) is one of these alternatives; however, data regarding the comparisons of efficacy and safety profiles of these 2 regimens is scarce. This study compared the outcomes of patients who received conditioning regimens with BEAM and TEAM and underwent an ASCT.

Methods: This study was conducted as a retrospective assessment of 294 patient outcomes in terms of efficacy and safety. Adult patients with lymphoma diagnosis who received BEAM or TEAM conditioning regimens and underwent an ASCT between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 were included in the analyses.

Results: A total of 294 patients (median age at ASCT: 50 years, males: 60.5%, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: 35%) were included. Eighty patients (27.2%) received the TEAM regimen, and 214 (72.8%) received the BEAM regimen. Regarding safety profiles, the thrombocyte engraftment time was significantly higher in the TEAM group (P = .003) and fever of unknown etiology was significantly higher in the BEAM group (P = .042). Also, nausea was more in the TEAM group (P = .031). The complete remission rate was 57.5% and 70.3% in the TEAM and BEAM regimens, respectively. The overall mortality rate was 37.3% and not significantly different between the groups (43% and 35% in the TEAM and BEAM groups, P = .22) over a similar median follow-up of 1667 days (P = .28). The 3-year survival rate was 66% and 67% and the 5-year survival rate was 52% and 58% in the TEAM and BEAM regimens, respectively, without significant difference.

Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few studies in the literature that compared the TEAM and BEAM as conditioning regimens for ASCT in lymphoma patients. The 2 regimens may provide similar overall survival outcomes and have a comparable safety profile. Although the BEAM regimen may be associated with longer progression-free survival times, the difference may be covered by the similar survival after ASCT.