Conclusions/Comments BEAM vs. single agent high dose Melphalan conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A retrospective matched analysis in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma M S Rauf1, Panayotis Kaloyannidis2, Irfan Maghfoor1, Solaf Kafnar2, John Apostolidis2 Khalid Al Anezi2, Harbi Salman2, Shaibani Eshrak2, Jenifer Bacal2, Tusneem A.M. Elhassan1, Saad Akhtar1, Hani Al Hashmi2 King Faisal Hospital and Research Center, Oncology Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2. King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Adult Hematology & Stem Cell Transplantation Department, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Background Survival curves for the whole cohort of patients (n=112) The ideal conditioning regimen still remains a challenge for patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for relapsed/refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma (RR-HL). The commonly used regimen is BEAM but single agent high-dose Melphalan (HDM) has also been used, however so far, there are limited experience and data comparing BEAM vs. HDM Overall survival Progression free survival Aim of the study To compare BEAM vs. HDM (200mg/m2) regimens in patients with RR-HL who underwent ASCT in terms of: Safety Efficacy Survival curves for patients in PR before ASCT (n=60) Methods Overall survival Progression free survival Type of study: Retrospective, Matched paired (1:3) Collaborative of 2 centers from Saudi Arabia Study period: November 2008-May 2017 Total HDM BEAM p- value Number of patients 112 28 84   Median Age 30 ns Gender (M/F) 71/41 18/10 53/31 Days for Conditioning 1 6 GCSF initiation post-ASCT Day +5 Day +1 Matched variables (1:3) Pre-Salvage Therapy Late Relapse 48 12 36 Early Relapse/Refractory 64 16 Response status before ASCT Complete Response (CR) 52 13 39 Partial Response (PR) 60 15 45 Survival curves for patients in CR before ASCT (n=52) Overall survival Progression free survival Results Conclusions/Comments To the best of our knowledge this study, though retrospective , is the first that compares in a matched-pair basis (1:3) the HDM with the “gold standard” regimen BEAM From our results it seems that: HDM is safe and equally effective to BEAM at least for patients in CR at the time of ASCT Noteworthy, for patients in PR before ASCT, HDM offered better survival rates, though not statistically significant 5 days duration difference between the two conditioning protocols (1 vs 6 days), less days of GCSF use, and faster PLTs recovery may contribute to a better cost effectiveness for the HDM regimen Prospective studies, and longer follow-up, including also a meticulous cost analysis, are warranted to determine the accurate role of single agent HDM as preparative regimen for ASCT in HL-patients.   HDM BEAM Absolute difference p- value ANCs > 500/mm3 +11 ns PLTs > 20,000/mm3 +13 +22 9 days 0.001 The whole cohort (n=112) 5-years OS 80% 68% 12 % 5-years PFS 65% 52% 13 % TRM 3.5% 2.3% 1.2 % Post-Salvage PR 83% 60% 23 % 40% 25 % Post-Salvage CR 77% 75% 2 % 67% 1 % Median F/U 2 years