Introduction: Type of conditioning regimen impacts the outcome of patients who undergo allogeneic HSCT since graft versus host disease (GVHD), infections, regimen related toxicities (RRT) are important causes of post‐transplant mortality. Despite the RRT profile of busulfan, it is frequently used worldwide. Treosulfan has advantages in terms of dose of administration, lower incidence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and lower neurotoxicity. We retrospectively investigated outcomes of patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT with treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning regimens in our institution.Methods: Treosulfan was administered to 94 patients while 85 patients received busulfan. Our outcomes were RRT, chronic and acute GVHD, relapse related mortality (RRM), non‐relapse mortality, and fungal infection. The clinical follow up data, regarding the primary and secondary endpoints of our study, of the patients who received treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning regimens were statistically analyzed.Results: The median follow‐up was 14 months for the treosulfan group while it was 11 months for the busulfan group (p = 0.16). RRT was 11.7% and 7.1% for treosulfan and busulfan respectively. The incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was less frequent in the treosulfan group compared to the busulfan group (15.7% vs. 32.1%) (p < 0.001). The incidence of acute GVHD (Grade 3 or higher) was 32.2% in the treosulfan group while it was 31.6% in the busulfan group. The RRM was 17% in the treosulfan group while it was 34% in the busulfan group. The non‐relapse mortality was 35.5% and 29.4% in the treosulfan group and in the busulfan group respectively (p = 0.962).Conclusion: Treosulfan, with a lower RRM, lower chronic GVHD incidence and with a similar RRT profile appears to be a safe alternative to busulfan.

Bacgroun/Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety, difference in duration of engraftment and relapse rates between autologous transplant patients who had their stem cell infusions during a single day or multiple days. Methods: In this retrospective study the clinical data of 77 ASCT patients from a single center,30 of whom were transplanted in fractionated infusions were investigated. Duration of engraftment, side effects during the transplant, PFS and OS data of the two groups was compared. Results: There was no statistical difference between single day and fractionated infusion patients regarding neutrophil engraftment, toxic side effects, PFS, OS and relapse rate at 18 months. Platelet engraftment was delayed for one day in the fractionated group, which did not cause prolonged hospitalization. The transplant patients who had multiple day infusion had similar engraftment duration despite their lower average CD34+ cell counts. Conclusion: Fractionated infusions lead to similar engraftment duration to single day infusion for ASCT. The higher CFU cell number seen in the poorly mobilized patients may have a key role in the adequate engraftment. The fractionated infusion approach for such patients was feasible, safe and no increase of the disease relapse was observed with this procedure.

Background and Objectives: Relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R NHL) remains a major therapeutic challenge, particularly in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL), who frequently exhibit poor responses to salvage therapy and inferior survival outcomes. Achieving adequate disease control before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a critical determinant of long-term survival. The bendamustine, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and prednisolone (BEGEV) regimen has demonstrated high efficacy and favorable tolerability in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma; however, data regarding its role in NHL are extremely limited. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with R/R NHL who received the BEGEV regimen as salvage therapy. Clinical characteristics, response rates, transplantation outcomes, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety data were evaluated. Treatment responses were assessed according to standard radiologic response criteria. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: A total of 68 patients with R/R NHL were included in the analysis. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was the predominant histological subtype, accounting for 49 patients (72.1%). BEGEV was administered predominantly in later salvage settings. Response assessments were available for 56 patients. Among evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 73.2%, whereas the ITT ORR was 60.3% (41/68). Following BEGEV therapy, 25 patients (36.8%) proceeded to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), while 8 patients (11.8%) underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Exploratory analyses demonstrated longer overall survival (log-rank p = 0.012) and progression-free survival (log-rank p = 0.011) among patients who subsequently underwent transplantation; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution because of the retrospective study design and the potential for selection and immortal time biases. Median PFS and OS were 4 and 26 months, respectively. Adverse events were predominantly hematologic and generally manageable. Conclusions: BEGEV may represent a reasonable salvage regimen for selected patients with R/R NHL and may facilitate disease control allowing subsequent transplantation in selected patients, including selected PTCL patients.

Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) remains a major therapeutic challenge, particularly in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL), who frequently exhibit poor responses to salvage therapy and inferior survival outcomes. Achieving adequate disease control before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a critical determinant of long-term survival. The bendamustine, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and prednisolone (BEGEV) regimen has demonstrated high efficacy and favorable tolerability in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma; however, data regarding its role in NHL are extremely limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with R/R NHL who received the BEGEV regimen as salvage therapy. Clinical characteristics, response rates, transplantation outcomes, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety data were evaluated. Treatment responses were assessed according to standard radiologic response criteria. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: A total of 68 patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R NHL) were included in the analysis. BEGEV was administered predominantly in later salvage settings. Among 56 evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 73.2%, including a complete response (CR) rate of 51.8%. Following BEGEV therapy, 25 patients (36.8%) proceeded to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), while 8 patients (11.8%) underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 4 and 26 months, respectively. Patients proceeding to transplantation demonstrated significantly improved survival outcomes. Treatment-related toxicities were predominantly hematologic and generally manageable. Conclusion: BEGEV may represent an effective and feasible salvage regimen in patients with R/R NHL and could serve as a valuable bridge-to-transplant strategy, including selected PTCL patients. Given the paucity of data in this setting, our findings provide real-world evidence supporting further prospective investigation of BEGEV-based approaches in NHL.