Kathy Watkins

Comparable efficacy and lower cost of PBSC mobilization with intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF compared with plerixafor and G-CSF in patients with multiple myeloma treated with novel therapies

Studies comparing the efficacy and cost of stem cell mobilization with intermediate-dose CY (ID-CY) and G-CSF against plerixafor and G-CSF, specifically in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated in the novel therapy era, are not available. Eighty-eight consecutive patients undergoing mobilization with ID-CY (3–4 g/m2) and G-CSF (n=55) were compared with patients receiving plerixafor and G-CSF (n=33). Compared with plerixafor, ID-CY use was associated with higher median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (68 vs 160 cells/μL, P<0.001), and CD34+ cell yield on day 1 of collection (6.9 × 106 vs 11.7 × 106 cells/kg, P<0.001). Total CD34+ cell yield was significantly higher in the ID-CY patients (median collection 16.6 × 106 vs 11.6 × 106 cells/kg; P<0.001). ID-CY use was associated with significantly more frequent episodes of febrile neutropenia (16.3% vs 0%; P=0.02), intravenous antibiotic use (16.3% vs 3%; P=0.03) and hospitalizations (P=0.02). The average total cost of mobilization in the plerixafor group was significantly higher compared with the ID-CY group (

Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients treat in the novel therapy-era with plerixafor and G-CSF has superior efficacy but significantly higher costs compared to mobilization with low-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF

28 980 vs

Salvage Bone Marrow Harvest in Patients Failing Plerixafor-Based Stem Cell Mobilization Attempt: Feasibility and Autologous Transplantation Outcomes

22 504.8; P=0.001). Our data indicate robust stem cell mobilization in MM patients treated with novel agents, with G-CSF and either ID-CY or plerixafor. When compared with plerixafor, ID-CY-containing mobilization was associated with significantly lower average total mobilization costs.

Higher infused CD34+ cell dose and overall survival in patients undergoing in vivo T-cell depleted, but not t-cell repleted, allogeneic peripheral blood hematopoietic cell transplantation

Studies comparing the efficacy and cost of peripheral blood stem and progenitor cells mobilization with low‐dose cyclophosphamide (LD‐CY) and granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF) against plerixafor and G‐CSF, in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated in the novel therapy‐era are not available. Herein, we report mobilization outcomes of 107 patients who underwent transplantation within 1‐year of starting induction chemotherapy with novel agents. Patients undergoing mobilization with LD‐CY (1.5 gm/m2) and G‐CSF (n = 74) were compared against patients receiving plerixafor and G‐CSF (n = 33). Compared to plerixafor, LD‐CY was associated with a significantly lower median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (68/µL vs. 36/µL, P = 0.048), and lower CD34+ cell yield on day 1 of collection (6.9 × 106/kg vs. 2.4 × 106/kg, P = 0.001). Six patients (8.1%) in the LD‐CY group experienced mobilization failure, compared to none in the plerixafor group. The total CD34+ cell yield was significantly higher in the plerixafor group (median 11.6 × 106/kg vs. 7 × 106/kg; P‐value = 0.001). Mobilization with LD‐CY was associated with increased (albeit statistically non‐significant) episodes of febrile neutropenia (5.4% vs. 0%; P = 0.24), higher use of intravenous antibiotics (6.7% vs. 3%; P = 0.45), and need for hospitalizations (9.4% vs. 3%; P = 0.24). The average total cost of mobilization in the plerixafor group was significantly higher compared to the LD‐CY group (

Intermediate-Dose versus Low-Dose Cyclophosphamide and Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Treated with Novel Induction Therapies

28,980 vs.

Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Mobilization with “Just-in-Time” Plerixafor Approach is a Cost Effective Alternative to Routine Plerixafor Use

19,626.5 P‐value < 0.0001). In conclusion, in MM plerixafor‐based mobilization has superior efficacy, but significantly higher mobilization costs compared to LD‐CY mobilization. Our data caution against the use of LD‐CY in MM patients for mobilization, especially after induction with lenalidomide‐containing regimens. J. Clin. Apheresis 28:359–367, 2013.

Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Mobilization with Ifosfamide, Carboplatin, and Etoposide Chemotherapy versus Plerixafor-Based Strategies in Patients with Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Inadequate mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is sometimes a limiting factor to proceed with an autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT), in an otherwise eligible patient. In such situations, a bone marrow harvest (BMH) procedure may be considered to achieve the CD34+ target dose for an autograft. Plerixafor-based mobilization has recently been shown to improve PBPC collection yields. However, the feasibility and outcomes of BMH in patients failing plerixafor-based mobilization is not known. We report here, 6 patients who underwent BMH after PBPC mobilization failure with plerixafor. The median CD34+ yield with plerixafor mobilization and BMH were 1.15 x 10^6/Kg (range, 0.2-1.7 × 10^6/Kg) and 0.32 (range, 0.12-0.38 × 10^6/Kg), respectively. Three patients proceeded to an auto-HCT, with only 1 patient receiving CD34+ cell dose of at least 2 × 10^6/Kg. While neutrophil recovery was seen, platelet recovery and red cell transfusion independence were delayed. All 3 autografted patients experienced disease progression by day +100. These data suggest, limited incremental benefit of a salvage BMH after plerixafor mobilization failure, cautioning against routine use of this strategy.

Chemomobilization with (R)-ICE (rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide) compared to G-CSF and plerixafor (G+P) mobilization in lymphoid malignancies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Understanding the effect of cellular graft composition on allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) outcomes is an area of great interest. The objective of the study was to analyze the correlation between transplant-related outcomes and administered CD34+, CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+ cell doses in patients who had undergone peripheral blood, AHCT and received either in vivo T-cell depleted or T-cell replete allografts. DESIGN AND SETTING Comparison of consecutive patients who underwent peripheral blood AHCT in our institution between January 2003 and December 2009. PATIENTS AND METHODS The cohort of 149 patients was divided into two groups; non T-cell depleted (NTCD) (n=54) and T-cell depleted (TCD) (n=95). Study endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), engraftment kinetics (neutrophil and platelet recovery), incidence of acute graft versus host disease (acute GVHD), chronic GVHD, nonrelapse mortality (NRM) and disease relapse. RESULTS Multivariate analysis showed that higher infused CD34+ cell dose improved OS (relative risk 0.58, 95% CI 0.34-0.98, P=.04), PFS (relative risk 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-1.00, P=.05) and NRM (relative risk 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.99, P=.048) in the TCD group. By multivariate analysis, there was no difference in engraftment, grades II-IV acute GVHD, extensive chronic GVHD and relapse in the two groups relative to the infused cell doses. There was a trend towards improved OS (relative risk 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.01, P=.05) with higher CD3+ cell dose in the TCD group. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that higher CD34+ cell dose imparts survival benefit only to in vivo TCD peripheral blood AHCT recipients.