Steady-State Versus Chemotherapy-Based Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma: A Single-Center Study to Analyze Efficacy and Safety.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEMATOLOGY Journal of hematology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-28 DOI:10.14740/jh1256
Nora Obajed Al-Ali, Laszlo Imre Pinczes, Katalin Farkas, Gyorgy Kerekes, Arpad Illes, Laszlo Varoczy
{"title":"Steady-State Versus Chemotherapy-Based Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma: A Single-Center Study to Analyze Efficacy and Safety.","authors":"Nora Obajed Al-Ali, Laszlo Imre Pinczes, Katalin Farkas, Gyorgy Kerekes, Arpad Illes, Laszlo Varoczy","doi":"10.14740/jh1256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell support is recommended in the treatment of eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of steady-state versus chemotherapy-based stem cell mobilization in our Hungarian patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The subjects were 210 MM patients who underwent stem cell mobilization procedure between 2018 and 2022. Solo granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered in 104 cases, while 106 patients received chemotherapy which was followed by G-CSF administration. We evaluated the ratio of successful mobilizations, the amount of collected stem cells, the incidence of infections and cost-effectivity in the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the steady-state group, there was a significantly higher need for plerixafor (45% vs. 13%, P < 0.001), unsuccessful stem cell mobilization was more frequent (11% vs. 3%, P = 0.024) and the mean amount of collected stem cells was lower (6.9 vs. 9.8 × 10<sup>6</sup>, P < 0.001) than in the chemotherapy group. However, infections were less frequent (4% vs. 27%, P < 0.001) and the number of days spent in hospital was significantly lower (6 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001). Plerixafor was more frequently administered in those who had received lenalidomide or daratumumab than in those who had been treated with other regimens (41% vs. 23%, P = 0.007 and 78% vs. 23%, P < 0.001, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Steady-state mobilization is a safe method; however, the higher rate of plerixafor administration and unsuccessful attempts may question its superiority to chemomobilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":15964,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hematology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11236354/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hematology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/jh1256","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell support is recommended in the treatment of eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of steady-state versus chemotherapy-based stem cell mobilization in our Hungarian patient population.

Methods: The subjects were 210 MM patients who underwent stem cell mobilization procedure between 2018 and 2022. Solo granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered in 104 cases, while 106 patients received chemotherapy which was followed by G-CSF administration. We evaluated the ratio of successful mobilizations, the amount of collected stem cells, the incidence of infections and cost-effectivity in the two groups.

Results: In the steady-state group, there was a significantly higher need for plerixafor (45% vs. 13%, P < 0.001), unsuccessful stem cell mobilization was more frequent (11% vs. 3%, P = 0.024) and the mean amount of collected stem cells was lower (6.9 vs. 9.8 × 106, P < 0.001) than in the chemotherapy group. However, infections were less frequent (4% vs. 27%, P < 0.001) and the number of days spent in hospital was significantly lower (6 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001). Plerixafor was more frequently administered in those who had received lenalidomide or daratumumab than in those who had been treated with other regimens (41% vs. 23%, P = 0.007 and 78% vs. 23%, P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions: Steady-state mobilization is a safe method; however, the higher rate of plerixafor administration and unsuccessful attempts may question its superiority to chemomobilization.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多发性骨髓瘤干细胞动员的稳态疗法与化疗疗法:分析疗效和安全性的单中心研究。
背景:在治疗符合条件的多发性骨髓瘤(MM)患者时,建议先进行大剂量化疗,然后再进行自体造血干细胞支持。本研究的目的是在匈牙利患者群体中,比较稳态干细胞动员与化疗干细胞动员的疗效和安全性:研究对象为2018年至2022年间接受干细胞动员手术的210名MM患者。其中104例患者使用了单独的粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF),106例患者在使用G-CSF后接受了化疗。我们评估了两组成功动员的比例、收集的干细胞数量、感染发生率和成本效益:在稳态组中,普乐沙福的需求量明显高于化疗组(45%对13%,P<0.001),干细胞动员不成功的频率更高(11%对3%,P=0.024),采集的干细胞平均量更低(6.9对9.8×106,P<0.001)。不过,感染发生率较低(4%对27%,P<0.001),住院天数显著减少(6天对14天,P<0.001)。接受来那度胺或达拉单抗治疗的患者比接受其他方案治疗的患者更常使用普乐沙福(分别为41%对23%,P=0.007和78%对23%,P<0.001):稳态动员是一种安全的方法;然而,较高的普利沙佛用药率和不成功的尝试可能会使人怀疑其优于化学动员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of hematology
Journal of hematology HEMATOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation After Solid Organ Transplantation in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies Managed With Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide-Based Graft-Versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis. Controversies in the Management of Ischemic Cerebrovascular Accidents in Patients With Non-Promyelocytic Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Ferritin and Iron Levels Inversely Associated With Lymphoma Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study. Freedom From Bleeds With Low-Dose Emicizumab Prophylaxis in Inhibitor-Positive Hemophilia A. Primary Refractory Discordant Diffuse Large B-Cell and Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1