Dataset Information

Efficacy of Pharmacokinetics-Directed Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide, and Etoposide Conditioning and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma: Comparison of a Multicenter Phase II Study and CIBMTR Outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (BuCyE) is a commonly used conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). This multicenter, phase II study examined the safety and efficacy of BuCyE with individually adjusted busulfan based on preconditioning pharmacokinetics. The study initially enrolled Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients ages 18 to 80 years but was amended due to high early treatment-related mortality (TRM) in patients > 65 years. BuCyE outcomes were compared with contemporaneous recipients of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Two hundred seven subjects with HL (n = 66) or NHL (n = 141) were enrolled from 32 centers in North America, and 203 underwent ASCT. Day 100 TRM for all subjects (n = 203), patients > 65 years (n = 17), and patients ≤ 65 years (n = 186) were 4.5%, 23.5%, and 2.7%, respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) were 33% for HL and 58%, 77%, and 43% for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 63), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n = 29), and follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23), respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year overall survival (OS) were 76% for HL and 65%, 89%, and 89% for DLBCL, MCL, and FL, respectively. In the matched analysis rates of 2-year TRM were 3.3% for BuCyE and 3.9% for BEAM, and there were no differences in outcomes for NHL. Patients with HL had lower rates of 2-year PFS with BuCyE, 33% (95% CI, 21% to 46%), than with BEAM, 59% (95% CI, 52% to 66%), with no differences in TRM or OS. BuCyE provided adequate disease control and safety in B cell NHL patients ≤ 65 years but produced worse PFS in HL patients when compared with BEAM.

SUBMITTER: Flowers CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4914052 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of Pharmacokinetics-Directed Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide, and Etoposide Conditioning and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma: Comparison of a Multicenter Phase II Study and CIBMTR Outcomes.

Flowers Christopher R CR Costa Luciano J LJ Pasquini Marcelo C MC Le-Rademacher Jennifer J Lill Michael M Shore Tsiporah B TB Vaughan William W Craig Michael M Freytes Cesar O CO Shea Thomas C TC Horwitz Mitchell E ME Fay Joseph W JW Mineishi Shin S Rondelli Damiano D Mason James J Braunschweig Ira I Ai Weiyun W Yeh Rosa F RF Rodriguez Tulio E TE Flinn Ian I Comeau Terrance T Yeager Andrew M AM Pulsipher Michael A MA Bence-Bruckler Isabelle I Laneuville Pierre P Bierman Philip P Chen Andy I AI Kato Kazunobu K Wang Yanlin Y Xu Cong C Smith Angela J AJ Waller Edmund K EK

Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation 20160331 7

Busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (BuCyE) is a commonly used conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). This multicenter, phase II study examined the safety and efficacy of BuCyE with individually adjusted busulfan based on preconditioning pharmacokinetics. The study initially enrolled Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients ages 18 to 80 years but was amended due to high early treatment-related mortality (TRM) in patients > 65 years. BuCy ...[more]

PMID: 27040394

Similar Datasets

Project description:Large, multicenter studies comparing commonly used reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) approaches in follicular lymphoma (FL) have not been performed. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we report the outcomes of the 2 most commonly used RIC approaches, fludarabine and busulfan (Flu/Bu) versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) in FL patients. We evaluated 200 FL patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) who received RIC with either Flu/Bu (n = 98) or FCR (n = 102) during 2008 to 2014. All patients received peripheral blood grafts, and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was limited to calcineurin inhibitor-based approaches. Median follow-up of survivors in the Flu/Bu and FCR groups was 48 months and 46 months, respectively. On univariate analysis in the Flu/Bu and FCR groups, the 3-year rates of nonrelapse mortality (11% versus 11%, P = .94), relapse/progression (18% versus 15%, P = .54), progression-free survival (PFS) (71% versus 74%, P = .65), and overall survival (OS) (73% versus 81%, P = .18) were not significantly different. On multivariate analysis no difference was seen between the FCR and Flu/Bu cohorts in terms of grades II to IV (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], .59 to 1.93; P = .84) or grades III to IV (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, .47 to 2.99; P = .72) acute GVHD, nonrelapse mortality (RR, .83; 95% CI, .38 to 1.82; P = .64), relapse/progression (RR, .99; 95% CI, .49 to 1.98; P = .97), PFS (RR, .92; 95% CI, .55 to 1.54; P = .76), or OS (RR, .70; 95% CI, .40 to 1.23; P = .21) risk. However, RIC with FCR was associated with a significantly reduced chronic GVHD risk (RR, .52; 95% CI, .36 to .77; P = .001). RIC with either Flu/Bu or FCR in patients with FL undergoing allo-HCT provides excellent 3-year OS, with acceptable rates of nonrelapse mortality. FCR-based conditioning was associated with a lower risk of chronic GVHD.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of Pharmacokinetics-Directed Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide, and Etoposide Conditioning and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma: Comparison of a Multicenter Phase II Study and CIBMTR Outcomes.

Publications

Efficacy of Pharmacokinetics-Directed Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide, and Etoposide Conditioning and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma: Comparison of a Multicenter Phase II Study and CIBMTR Outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets