Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Hematopoietic Cell Collection

G-CSF plus preemptive plerixafor vs hyperfractionated CY plus G-CSF for autologous stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: effectiveness, safety and cost analysis

Abstract

The optimal stem cell mobilization regimen for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) remains undefined. We retrospectively compared our experience in hematopoietic cell mobilization in 83 MM patients using fractionated high-dose CY and G-CSF with G-CSF plus preemptive plerixafor. All patients in the CY group (n=56) received fractionated high-dose CY (5 g/m2 divided into five doses of 1 g/m2 every 3 h) with G-CSF. All patients in the plerixafor group (n=27) received G-CSF and plerixafor preemptively based on an established algorithm. Compared with plerixafor, CY use was associated with higher total CD34+ cell yield (7.5 × 106 vs 15.5 × 106 cells/kg, P=0.005). All patients in both groups yielded 4 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg. Conversely, CY use was associated with high frequency of febrile neutropenia, blood and platelet transfusions need and hospitalizations. The average total cost of mobilization in Lebanon was slightly higher in the plerixafor group ($7886 vs $7536; P=0.16). Our data indicate robust stem cell mobilization in MM patients with either fractionated high-dose CY and G-CSF or G-CSF alone with preemptive plerixafor. The chemo-mobilization approach was associated with twofold stem cell yield, slightly lower cost but significantly increased toxicity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, Sotto JJ, Fuzibet JG, Rossi JF et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francais du Myelome. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 91–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fermand JP, Katsahian S, Divine M, Leblond V, Dreyfus F, Macro M et al. High-dose therapy and autologous blood stem-cell transplantation compared with conventional treatment in myeloma patients aged 55 to 65 years: long-term results of a randomized control trial from the Group Myelome-Autogreffe. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 9227–9233.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Koreth J, Cutler CS, Djulbegovic B, Behl R, Schlossman RL, Munshi NC et al. High-dose therapy with single autologous transplantation versus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2007; 13: 183–196.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldschmidt H, Hegenbart U, Haas R, Hunstein W . Mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells with high-dose cyclophosphamide (4 or 7g/m2 and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 1996; 17: 691–697.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hiwase DK, Bollard G, Hiwase S, Bailey M, Muirhead J, Schwarer AP . Intermediate-dose CY and G-CSF more efficiently mobilize adequate numbers of PBSC for tandem autologous PBSC transplantation compared with low-dose CY in patients with multiple myeloma. Cytotherapy 2007; 9: 539–547.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jantunen E, Putkonen M, Nousiainen T, Pelliniemi TT, Mahlamaki E, Remes K . Low-dose or intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for progenitor cell mobilisation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2003; 31: 347–351.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fitoussi O, Perreau V, Boiron JM, Bouzigon E, Cony-Makhoul P, Pigneux A et al. A comparison of toxicity following two different doses of cyclophosphamide for mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in 116 multiple myeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant 2001; 27: 837–842.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hamadani M, Kochuparambil ST, Osman S, Cumpston A, Leadmon S, Bunner P et al. 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. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2012; 18: 1128–1135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Petrucci MT, Avvisati G, La Verde G, De Fabritiis P, Ribersani M, Palumbo G et al. Intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is a valid alternative to high-dose cyclophosphamide for mobilizing peripheral blood CD34+ cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Acta Haematol 2003; 109: 184–188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lerro KA, Medoff E, Wu Y, Seropian SE, Snyder E, Krause D et al. A simplified approach to stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients not previously treated with alkylating agents. Bone Marrow Transplant 2003; 32: 1113–1117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Alegre A, Tomas JF, Martinez-Chamorro C, Gil-Fernandez JJ, Fernandez-Villalta MJ, Arranz R et al. Comparison of peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma: high-dose cyclophosphamide plus GM-CSF vs G-CSF alone. Bone Marrow Transplant 1997; 20: 211–217.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gertz MA, Kumar SK, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, Hayman SR, Buadi FK et al. Comparison of high-dose CY and growth factor with growth factor alone for mobilization of stem cells for transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2009; 43: 619–625.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Desikan KR, Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Vesole DH, Siegel D, Fassas A et al. Comparable engraftment kinetics following peripheral-blood stem-cell infusion mobilized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with or without cyclophosphamide in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 1547–1553.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stewart DA, Smith C, MacFarland R, Calandra G . Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of plerixafor in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009; 15: 39–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lack NA, Green B, Dale DC, Calandra GB, Lee H, MacFarland RT et al. A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model for the mobilization of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells by AMD3100. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005; 77: 427–436.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tricot G, Cottler-Fox MH, Calandra G . Safety and efficacy assessment of plerixafor in patients with multiple myeloma proven or predicted to be poor mobilizers, including assessment of tumor cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant 2010; 45: 63–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stiff P, Micallef I, McCarthy P, Magalhaes-Silverman M, Weisdorf D, Territo M et al. Treatment with plerixafor in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients to increase the number of peripheral blood stem cells when given a mobilizing regimen of G-CSF: implications for the heavily pretreated patient. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009; 15: 249–256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Costa LJ, Abbas J, Hogan KR, Kramer C, McDonald K, Butcher CD et al. Growth factor plus preemptive ('just-in-time') plerixafor successfully mobilizes hematopoietic stem cells in multiple myeloma patients despite prior lenalidomide exposure. Bone Marrow Transplant 2012; 47: 1403–1408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Costa LJ, Miller AN, Alexander ET, Hogan KR, Shabbir M, Schaub C et al. Growth factor and patient-adapted use of plerixafor is superior to CY and growth factor for autologous hematopoietic stem cells mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant 2011; 46: 523–528.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Costa LJ, Alexander ET, Hogan KR, Schaub C, Fouts TV, Stuart RK . Development and validation of a decision-making algorithm to guide the use of plerixafor for autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant 2011; 46: 64–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vishnu P, Roy V, Paulsen A, Zubair AC . Efficacy and cost-benefit analysis of risk-adaptive use of plerixafor for autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization. Transfusion 2012; 52: 55–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Micallef IN, Sinha S, Gastineau DA, Wolf R, Inwards DJ, Gertz MA et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a risk-adapted algorithm of plerixafor use for autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013; 19: 87–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Popat U, Saliba R, Thandi R, Hosing C, Qazilbash M, Anderlini P et al. Impairment of filgrastim-induced stem cell mobilization after prior lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009; 15: 718–723.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Buadi FK, Gastineau DA et al. Impact of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell mobilization and engraftment post-peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Leukemia 2007; 21: 2035–2042.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. DiPersio JF, Micallef IN, Stiff PJ, Bolwell BJ, Maziarz RT, Jacobsen E et al. Phase III prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of plerixafor plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor compared with placebo plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for autologous stem-cell mobilization and transplantation for patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4767–4773.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. DiPersio JF, Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A, Micallef IN, Stiff PJ, Kaufman JL et al. Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2009; 113: 5720–5726.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Micallef IN, Ho AD, Klein LM, Marulkar S, Gandhi PJ, Calandra G et al. Plerixafor (Mozobil) for stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide. Bone Marrow Transplant 2011; 46: 350–355.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Micallef IN, Stiff PJ, DiPersio JF, Maziarz RT, McCarty JM, Bridger G et al. Successful stem cell remobilization using plerixafor (mozobil) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with non-hodgkin lymphoma: results from the plerixafor NHL phase 3 study rescue protocol. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009; 15: 1578–1586.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Devine SM . Toward a more rational policy for autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2012; 18: 1468–1470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Attolico I, Pavone V, Ostuni A, Rossini B, Musso M, Crescimanno A et al. Plerixafor added to chemotherapy plus G-CSF is safe and allows adequate PBSC collection in predicted poor mobilizer patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2012; 18: 241–249.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Awan F, Kochuparambil ST, Falconer DE, Cumpston A, Leadmon S, Watkins K et al. 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. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013; 48: 1279–1284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A Bazarbachi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antar, A., Otrock, Z., Kharfan-Dabaja, M. et al. G-CSF plus preemptive plerixafor vs hyperfractionated CY plus G-CSF for autologous stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: effectiveness, safety and cost analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant 50, 813–817 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2015.23

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2015.23

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links