Title | Phase III randomized study of rituximab/carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) compared with iodine-131 tositumomab/BEAM with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: results from the BMT C |
Publication Type | Journal Article |
Year of Publication | 2013 |
Authors | Vose, JM, Carter, S, Burns, LJ, Ayala, E, Press, OW, Moskowitz, CH, Stadtmauer, EA, Mineshi, S, Ambinder, R, Fenske, T, Horowitz, M, Fisher, R, Tomblyn, M |
Journal | J Clin Oncol |
Volume | 31 |
Issue | 13 |
Pagination | 1662-8 |
Date Published | 2013 May 01 |
ISSN | 1527-7755 |
Keywords | Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Carmustine, Combined Modality Therapy, Cytarabine, Etoposide, Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Humans, Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse, Melphalan, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Radioimmunotherapy, Recurrence, Rituximab, Transplantation, Autologous, Young Adult |
Abstract | PURPOSE: This clinical trial evaluated standard-dose radioimmunotherapy with a chemotherapy-based transplantation regimen followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation versus rituximab with the same regimen in patients with relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with chemotherapy-sensitive persistent or relapsed DLBCL were randomly assigned to receive iodine-131 tositumomab (dosimetric dose of 5 mCi on day -19 and therapeutic dose of 0.75 Gy on day -12), carmustine 300 mg/m(2) (day -6), etoposide 100 mg/m(2) twice daily (days -5 to -2), cytarabine 100 mg/m(2) twice daily (days -5 to -2), and melphalan 140 mg/m(2) (day -1; B-BEAM) or rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on days -19 and -12 and the same chemotherapy regimen (R-BEAM). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-four patients were enrolled, with 113 patients randomly assigned to R-BEAM and 111 patients assigned to B-BEAM. Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates, the primary end point, were 48.6% (95% CI, 38.6% to 57.8%) for R-BEAM and 47.9% (95% CI, 38.2% to 57%; P = .94) for B-BEAM, and the 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were 65.6% (95% CI, 55.3% to 74.1%) for R-BEAM and 61% (95% CI, 50.9% to 69.9%; P = .38) for B-BEAM. The 100-day treatment-related mortality rates were 4.1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 8.0%) for R-BEAM and 4.9% (95% CI, 0.8% to 9.0%; P = .97) for B-BEAM. The maximum mucositis score was higher in the B-BEAM arm (0.72) compared with the R-BEAM arm (0.31; P CONCLUSION: The B-BEAM and R-BEAM regimens produced similar 2-year PFS and OS rates for patients with chemotherapy-sensitive relapsed DLBCL. No differences in toxicities other than mucositis were noted. |
DOI | 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.9453 |
Alternate Journal | J Clin Oncol |
PubMed ID | 23478060 |
PubMed Central ID | PMC3635682 |
Grant List | U10 HL069294 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States UG1 HL069286 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U10 HL069290 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U10 HL069301 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U10 HL069330 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U10 HL069249 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U10 HL069310 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL069294 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States P30 CA016520 / CA / NCI NIH HHS / United States U10 HL069348 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U24 CA076518 / CA / NCI NIH HHS / United States U10 HL069286 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01HL069294 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States |