Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma: Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Cyclophosphamide +/- Plerixafor vs. G-CSF +/- Plerixafor in the Lenalidomide Era. Transplantation and cellular therapy Johnsrud, A., Ladha, A., Muffly, L., Shiraz, P., Goldstein, G., Osgood, V., Shizuru, J. A., Johnston, L., Arai, S., Weng, W., Lowsky, R., Rezvani, A. R., Meyer, E. H., Frank, M. J., Negrin, R. S., Miklos, D. B., Sidana, S. 2021


Growth factor and chemotherapy-based stem cell mobilization strategies are commonly used for patients with multiple myeloma. We retrospectively compared 398 patients mobilized between 2017-2020 using either cyclophosphamide (4g/m2) plus granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) or G-CSF alone, with on demand plerixafor (PXF) in both groups. While total CD34+yield was higher after chemo-mobilization compared to GCSF+/-PXF (median 13.6 vs. 4.4?*?106/kg,P< .01), achievement of=2?*?106CD34+ cells (95% vs 93.7%,P= .61), and rates of mobilization failure (5% vs. 6.3%,P= .61) were similar. Fewer patients required PXF with chemo-mobilization (12.3% vs 49.5%,P< .01), and apheresis sessions were fewer (median: 1, range 1-4 vs. 2, range 1-5). Complications were higher after chemo-mobilization (30% vs. 7.4%,P< .01), including neutropenic fever, ED visits, and hospitalizations. Prior lenalidomide=6 cycles did not impair cell yield in either group.Median cost of mobilization was 17.4% lower in the GCSF +/- PXF group (P= .01).Differences in time to engraftment were not clinically significant. Given similar rates mobilization success, engraftment time, and less toxicity and lower costs compared to chemo-mobilization, G-CSF with on-demand PXF may be preferable in myeloma patients with adequate disease control and limited lenalidomide exposure.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jtct.2021.04.016

View details for PubMedID 33915323