Selection of a mobilization regimen for multiple myeloma based on the response to induction therapy: granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone versus high-dose cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF

References

• Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood 2008; 111: 2516–2520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensinger W. Stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in the era of novel drugs. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 480–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bashey A, Donohue M, Liu L, et al. Peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization with intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide, sequential granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor, and scheduled commencement of leukapheresis in 225 patients undergoing autologous transplantation. Transfusion 2007; 47: 2153–2160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacoub JF, Suryadevara U, Pereyra V, et al. Mobilization strategies for the collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells: results from a pilot study of delayed addition G-CSF following chemotherapy and review of the literature. Exp Hematol 2006; 34: 1443–1450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attal M, Harousseau JL, Facon T, et al. Single versus double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2495–2502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putkonen M, Rauhala A, Itala M, et al. Double versus single autotransplantation in multiple myeloma; a single center experience of 100 patients. Haematologica 2005; 90: 562–563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gertz MA. Current status of stem cell mobilization. Br J Haematol 2010; 150: 647–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyson PG, Horvath N, Joshua D, et al. CD34 + selection of autologous peripheral blood stem cells for transplantation following sequential cycles of high-dose therapy and mobilization in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2000; 25: 1175–1184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitoussi O, Perreau V, Boiron JM, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefrere F, Makke J, Fermand J, et al. Blood stem cell collection using chemotherapy with or without systematic G-CSF: experience in 52 patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 1999; 24: 463–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrucci MT, Avvisati G, La Verde 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gertz MA, Kumar SK, Lacy MQ, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giralt S, Stadtmauer EA, Harousseau JL, et al. International myeloma working group (IMWG) consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current status of stem cell collection and high-dose therapy for multiple myeloma and the role of plerixafor (AMD 3100). Leukemia 2009; 23: 1904–1912.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desikan KR, Barlogie B, Jagannath S, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingli D, Nowakowski GS, Dispenzieri A, et al. Cyclophosphamide mobilization does not improve outcome in patients receiving stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 2006; 6: 384–388.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kumar A, Kharfan-Dabaja MA, Glasmacher A, et al. Tandem versus single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 100–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shimura Y, Kuroda J, Uchiyama H, et al. Hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization using low-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for multiple myeloma. J Clin Apher 2013; 28: 368–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamadani M, Kochuparambil ST, Osman S, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.0.
   Google Scholar
• Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006; 20: 1467–1473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavo M, Tosi P, Zamagni E, et al. Prospective, randomized study of single compared with double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Bologna 96 clinical study. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2434–2441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos MA, Chen C, Spencer A, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009; 23: 2147–2152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson PG, Barlogie B, Berenson J, et al. A phase 2 study of bortezomib in relapsed, refractory myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2609–2617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonial S, Waller EK, Richardson PG, et al. Risk factors and kinetics of thrombocytopenia associated with bortezomib for relapsed, refractory multiple myeloma. Blood 2005; 106: 3777–3784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim JS, Kim K, Cheong JW, et al. Complete remission status before autologous stem cell transplantation is an important prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing upfront single autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009; 15: 463–470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, Attal M, Pegourie B, et al. Achievement of VGPR to induction therapy is an important prognostic factor for longer PFS in the IFM 2005-01 trial. Blood 2011; 117: 3041–3044.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SE, Yoon JH, Shin SH, et al. Bone marrow plasma cell assessment before peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 982504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood WA, Whitley J, Moore D, et al. Chemomobilization with etoposide is highly effective in patients with multiple myeloma and overcomes the effects of age and prior therapy. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2011; 17: 141–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar S, Giralt S, Stadtmauer EA, et al. Mobilization in myeloma revisited: IMWG consensus perspectives on stem cell collection following initial therapy with thalidomide-, lenalidomide-, or bortezomib-containing regimens. Blood 2009; 114: 1729–1735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiPersio JF, Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaudhary L, Awan F, Cumpston A, et al. 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. J Clin Apher 2013; 28: 359–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SJ, Yoon DH, Yang DH, et al. Plerixafor use for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in Korea. Blood Res 2013; 48: 72–73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Costa LJ, Alexander ET, Hogan KR, et al. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abhyankar S, DeJarnette S, Aljitawi O, et al. A risk-based approach to optimize autologous hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) collection with the use of plerixafor. Bone Marrow Transplant 2012; 47: 483–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giralt S, Costa L, Schriber J, et al. Optimizing autologous stem cell mobilization strategies to improve patient outcomes: consensus guidelines and recommendations. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2014; 20: 295–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar