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, Julie M; Carter, Shelly; Burns, Linda J; Ayala, Ernesto; Press, Oliver W; Moskowitz, Craig H; Stadtmauer, Edward A; Mineshi, Shin; Ambinder, Richard; Fenske, Timothy; Horowitz, Mary; Fisher, Richard; Tomblyn, Marcie
Secondary
J Clin Oncol
Volume
31
Pagination
1662-8
Date Published
2013 May 01
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 < .001).

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.