Plerixafor Plus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor versus Placebo Plus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor for Mobilization of CD34(+) Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Patients with Multiple Myeloma and Low Peripheral Blood CD34(+) Cell Count: Results of a Subset Analysis of a Randomized Trial
Preapheresis peripheral blood (PB) CD34(+) cell count is a strong predictor of hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) mobilization and is routinely used to optimize the timing, cost, and success of HSC collection in patients with multiple myeloma. However, a uniform PB CD34(+) cell count that predicts mobilization failure has not been defined, resulting in the development of institute-specific algorithms for mobilization, particularly regarding the decision of when to use the novel stem cell mobilization agent plerixafor. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated the mobilization efficacy of plerixafor plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus placebo plus G-CSF in patients with multiple myeloma, stratified by preapheresis PB CD34(+) cell count: <10, <15, <20, and ≥20 cells/μL. Regardless of the PB CD34(+) cell count, the total yield of CD34(+) cells from apheresis was significantly higher in the plerixafor group than in the placebo group, and significantly more patients in the plerixafor group collected the minimum (≥2 × 10(6) cells/kg) and optimum (≥6 × 10(6) cells/kg) stem cell yields on each day of apheresis. As a corollary, the greater stem cell collection in plerixafor-treated patients resulted in the need for significantly fewer days of apheresis to reach minimum and optimum cell doses across all cell count groups. For all CD34(+) cell count groups, the proportion of patients proceeding to transplantation and the median time to platelet and neutrophil engraftment were similar in the plerixafor and placebo groups. Our findings demonstrate that in patients with multiple myeloma who might be predicted to fail mobilization based on low PB CD34(+) cell count, the addition of plerixafor to G-CSF allows for collection of the minimal and optimal cell doses in a greater proportion of patients compared with G-CSF alone. In addition, plerixafor plus G-CSF significantly improves the likelihood of optimal HSC collection in patients with higher preapheresis PB CD34(+) cell counts (≥20 cells/μL) compared with placebo plus G-CSF. Collectively, this analysis of predicted poor mobilizers validates the superiority of plerixafor plus G-CSF compared with G-CSF alone, which had been demonstrated previously in the overall patient population.
Figures in this publication
Available from: Meong Hi Son
- "For such poor mobilizers, plerixafor might be helpful in collecting more CD34+ cells. Recent studies demonstrated that more CD34+ cells can be collected with G-CSF + plerixafor than with G-CSF alone (14, 15). However, its efficacy and toxicity have not been validated in children with solid tumors. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although the number of studies using tandem high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDCT/autoSCT) for the treatment of high-risk pediatric solid tumors has been increasing, documentation of hematologic recovery after tandem HDCT/autoSCT is very limited. For this reason, we retrospectively analyzed the hematologic recovery of 236 children with high-risk solid tumors who underwent tandem HDCT/autoSCT. The median numbers of CD34(+) cells transplanted during the first and second HDCT/autoSCT were 4.3 × 10(6)/kg (range 0.6-220.2) and 4.1 × 10(6)/kg (range 0.9-157.6), respectively (P = 0.664). While there was no difference in neutrophil recovery between the first and second HDCT/autoSCT, platelet and RBC recoveries were significantly delayed in the second HDCT/autoSCT (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Delayed recovery in the second HDCT/autoSCT was more prominent when the number of transplanted CD34(+) cells was lower, especially if it was < 2 × 10(6)/kg. A lower CD34(+) cell count was also associated with increased RBC transfusion requirements and a higher serum ferritin level after tandem HDCT/autoSCT. More CD34(+) cells need to be transplanted during the second HDCT/autoSCT in order to achieve the same hematologic recovery as the first HDCT/autoSCT.
Journal of Korean medical science 02/2013; 28(2):220-6. DOI:10.3346/jkms.2013.28.2.220 · 1.27 Impact Factor
Available from: sciencedirect.com
Biology of blood and marrow transplantation: journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation 08/2012; 18(10):1468-70. DOI:10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.08.001 · 3.40 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The effectiveness of stem cell mobilization with G-CSF in lymphoma patients is suboptimal. We reviewed our institutional experience using chemomobilization with etoposide (VP-16; 375 mg/m(2) on days +1 and +2) and G-CSF (5 μg/kg twice daily from day +3 through the final day of collection) in 159 patients with lymphoma. This approach resulted in successful mobilization (>2 × 10(6) CD34+ cells collected) in 94% of patients (83% within 4 apheresis sessions). Fifty-seven percent of patients yielded at least 5 × 10(6) cells in 2 days and were defined as good mobilizers. The regimen was safe with a low rate of rehospitalization. Average costs were $14 923 for good mobilizers and $27 044 for poor mobilizers (P<0.05). Using our data, we performed a 'break-even' analysis that demonstrated that adding two doses of Plerixafor to predicted poor mobilizers at the time of first CD34+ cell count would achieve cost neutrality if the frequency of good mobilizers were to increase by 21%, while the frequency of good mobilizers would need to increase by 25% if three doses of Plerixafor were used. We conclude that chemomobilization with etoposide and G-CSF in patients with lymphoma is effective, with future opportunities for cost-neutral improvement using novel agents.Bone Marrow Transplantation advance online publication, 19 November 2012; doi:10.1038/bmt.2012.216.
Bone marrow transplantation 11/2012; 48(6). DOI:10.1038/bmt.2012.216 · 3.57 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.