Prolonged infusion time of cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as a mobilization regimen may improve mobilization efficiency in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: a single center experience

References

• Cowan AJ, Allen C, Barac A, et al. Global burden of multiple myeloma: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(9):1–9. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attal M, Harousseau J-L, Stoppa A-M, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(2):91–97. doi:10.1056/NEJM199607113350204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, et al. Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients. Leukemia. 2014;28(5):1122–1128. doi:10.1038/leu.2013.313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavo M, Gay F, Beksac M, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus bortezomib–melphalan–prednisone, with or without bortezomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone consolidation therapy, and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (EMN02/HO95): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7(6):e456–e68. doi:10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1311–1320. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1611750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Child JA, Morgan GJ, Davies FE, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(19):1875–1883. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa022340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar SK, Callander NS, Adekola K, et al. Multiple myeloma, version 3.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(12):1685–1717. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2020.0057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagelmann N, Eikema D-J, Koster L, et al. Tandem autologous stem cell transplantation improves outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with extramedullary disease and high-risk cytogenetics: a study from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25(11):2134–2142. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.07.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohty M, Hübel K, Kröger N, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell mobilisation in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients: a position statement from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(7):865–872. doi:10.1038/bmt.2014.39.
   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(3):295–308. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.10.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreb JS, Byrne M, Shugarman I, et al. Poor peripheral blood stem cell mobilization affects long-term outcomes in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. J Clin Apher. 2018;33(1):29–37. doi:10.1002/jca.21556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chua CC, Lim HY, Chai KL, et al. Peripheral blood stem cell mobilisation with G-CSF alone versus G-CSF and cyclophosphamide after bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone induction in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53(9):1116–1123. doi:10.1038/s41409-018-0152-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanimura A, Hirai R, Nakamura M, et al. Improved progression-free and event-free survival in myeloma patients undergoing PBSCH receiving a cyclophosphamide + G-CSF regimen than G-CSF alone. Int J Hematol. 2018;107(5):559–567. doi:10.1007/s12185-018-2408-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gertz M, Kumar S, Lacy M, 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(8):619–625. doi:10.1038/bmt.2008.369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Xiang H, Yan Y, et al. Comparison of the efficiency, safety, and survival outcomes in two stem cell mobilization regimens with cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF or G-CSF alone in multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. Ann Hematol. 2021;100(2):575–573. doi:10.1007/s00277-020-04376-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozsan GH, Micallef IN, Dispenzieri A, et al. Hematopoietic recovery kinetics predicts for poor CD34+ cell mobilization after cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2012;87(1):1–4. doi:10.1002/ajh.22179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazumder A, Kaufman J, Niesvizky R, et al. Effect of lenalidomide therapy on mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia. 2008;22(6):1280–1281. doi:10.1038/sj.leu.2405035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paripati H, Stewart A, Cabou S, et al. Compromised stem cell mobilization following induction therapy with lenalidomide in myeloma. Leukemia. 2008;22(6):1282–1284. doi:10.1038/sj.leu.2405100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popat U, Saliba R, Thandi R, et al. Impairment of filgrastim-induced stem cell mobilization after prior lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(6):718–723. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.02.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afifi S, Adel N, Devlin S, et al. Upfront plerixafor plus G-CSF versus cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF for stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: efficacy and cost analysis study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(4):546–552. doi:10.1038/bmt.2015.322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkelmann N, Desole M, Hilgendorf I, et al. Comparison of two dose levels of cyclophosphamide for successful stem cell mobilization in myeloma patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142(12):2603–2610. doi:10.1007/s00432-016-2270-9.
   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(7):1128–1135. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.01.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikhael J, Ismaila N, Cheung MC, et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma: ASCO and CCO Joint Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(14):1228–1263. doi:10.1200/JCO.18.02096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu L, Liu J, Huang B, et al. Comparison of efficacy, safety, patients’ quality of life, and doctors’ occupational stress between lenalidomide-based and bortezomib-based induction in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Cancer Med. 2021;10(5):1656–1667. doi:10.1002/cam4.3762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson DE, Bensadoun R-J, Lalla RV, et al. Supportive care treatment guidelines: value, limitations, and opportunities presented at seminars in oncology. 2011;38:367–73. Elsevier. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2011.03.005.
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland DR, Anderson L, Keeney M, et al. The Ishage guidelines for CD34+ cell determination by flow cytometry. J Hematother. 1996;5(3):213–226. doi:10.1089/scd.1.1996.5.213.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kyle R, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2009;23(1):3–9. doi:10.1038/leu.2008.291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma: every year a new standard? Hematol Oncol. 2019;37(Suppl 1):62–65. doi:10.1002/hon.2586.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Devarakonda S, Efebera Y, Sharma N. Role of stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(4):863. doi:10.3390/cancers13040863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar SK, Buadi FK, Rajkumar SV. Pros and cons of frontline autologous transplant in multiple myeloma: the debate over timing. Blood J Am Soc Hematol. 2019;133(7):652–659. doi:10.1182/blood-2018-08-825349.
   Google Scholar
• Cavo M, Goldschmidt H, Rosinol L, et al. Double vs single autologous stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up (10-years) analysis of randomized phase 3 studies. Blood. 2018;132(Supplement 1):124–124. doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-112899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonsalves W, Gertz M, Lacy M, et al. Second auto-SCT for treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(4):568–573. doi:10.1038/bmt.2012.183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giralt S, Garderet L, Durie B, et al. American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network, and International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Conference on salvage hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(12):2039–2051. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.09.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musto P, Simeon V, Grossi A, et al. Predicting poor peripheral blood stem cell collection in patients with multiple myeloma receiving pre-transplant induction therapy with novel agents and mobilized with cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor: results from a Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche Dell’adulto Multiple Myeloma Working Party Study. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015;6(1):64. doi:10.1186/s13287-015-0033-1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Uy GL, Costa LJ, Hari PN, et al. Contribution of chemotherapy mobilization to disease control in multiple myeloma treated with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(12):1513–1518. doi:10.1038/bmt.2015.190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvennoinen R, Anttila P, Säily M, et al. A randomized phase ii study of stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide + G-CSF or G-CSF alone after lenalidomide-based induction in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(3):372–376. doi:10.1038/bmt.2015.236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jantunen E, Putkonen M, Nousiainen T, et al. 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(5):347–351. doi:10.1038/sj.bmt.1703840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitoussi O, Perreau V, Boiron J, 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(8):837–842. doi:10.1038/sj.bmt.1702879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein HO, Wickramanayake PD, Christian E, et al. Therapeutic effects of single-push or fractionated injections or continuous infusion of oxazaphosphorines (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, ASTA Z 7557). Cancer. 1984;54(S1):1193–1203. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19840915)54:1+<1193::AID-CNCR2820541317>3.0.CO;2-Z.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Voelcker G, Wagner T, Wientzek C, et al. Pharmacokinetics of “activated” cyclophosphamide and therapeutic efficacies. Cancer. 1984;54(S1):1179–1186. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19840915)54:1+<1179::AID-CNCR2820541315>3.0.CO;2-P.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jang JE, Cheong J-W, Kim S-J, et al. 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. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016;57(6):1389–1397. doi:10.3109/10428194.2015.1102240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung S-H, Park H, Ahn J-S, et al. Efficacy of stem cell mobilization in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma after a CTD (cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone) regimen. Int J Hematol. 2013;97(1):92–97. doi:10.1007/s12185-012-1237-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu J, Li J, Liu J, et al. High dose melphalan (HDM) is superior to cyclophosphamide plus etoposide and busulfan (CVB) as the conditioning regimen in autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua Xueyexue Zazhi. 2019;40:732–737.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar