Single-center retrospective study assessing the efficacy and safety of BeEAM (bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) as conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

One of the most widely accepted conditioning regimens for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan). However, a recent increase in the cost of carmustine has limited its use bringing our institution to replace carmustine with bendamustine. This observational retrospective single-center study aims to report the efficacy and safety of the BeEAM regimen. 55 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (47%), Hodgkin lymphoma (25%), mantle cell lymphoma (25%), or follicular lymphoma (2%) were included. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 months was 75% and overall survival (OS) was 83%. Treatment-related mortality was 4%. The most common adverse effects were febrile neutropenia (98%), mucositis (72%) and colitis (60%). Our study demonstrated excellent efficacy of the BeEAM regimen. However, the toxicity profile of BeEAM significantly varies from one study to another, and guidelines suggesting optimal dose of bendamustine and supportive care are currently lacking.

Sagittal Balance Correction Following Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of the Three Approaches.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare three widely used interbody fusion approaches in regard to their ability to correct sagittal balance, including pelvic parameters. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Restoration of sagittal balance in lumbar spine surgery is associated with better postoperative outcomes. Various interbody fusion techniques can help to correct sagittal balance, with no clear consensus on which technique offers the best correction. METHODS: The charts and imaging of patients who have undergone surgery through either open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MIS TLIF), or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) were retrospectively reviewed. The following sagittal balance parameters were measured pre- and postoperatively: segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, disk height, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence. Data on postoperative complications were gathered. RESULTS: Only OLIF managed to significantly improve segmental lordosis (4.4°, p <0.001) and lumbar lordosis (4.8°, p =0.049). All approaches significantly augmented disk height, with OLIF having the greatest effect (3.7°, p <0.001). No approaches were shown to significantly correct pelvic tilt. Pelvic incidence remained unchanged in all approaches. Open TLIF was the only approach with a higher rate of postoperative complications (33%, p =0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The OLIF approach might offer greater correction of sagittal balance over open and MIS TLIF, mainly in regard to segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, and disk height. MIS TLIF, although offering more limited access than open TLIF, was not inferior to open TLIF in regard to sagittal balance correction. A higher rate of complications was shown for open TLIF than the other approaches, possibly due to its more invasive nature.