Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Prognostic factors for re-mobilization using plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma previously failing mobilization with G-CSF with or without chemotherapy: the Korean multicenter retrospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Hematology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Plerixafor in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been shown to improve the rates of successful peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization in patients with malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma (MM) who experienced prior failure of PBSC mobilization. We evaluated the mobilization results of re-mobilization using plerixafor and G-CSF in insufficiently mobilizing patients. Forty-four patients with lymphoma (n = 29) or MM (n = 15) were included in the study. The median age was 50 (range, 24–64) years. Previous mobilization regimens were chemotherapy with G-CSF (n = 28), including cyclophosphamide with G-CSF (n = 15), and G-CSF only (n = 16). All patients with lymphoma achieved at least partial response (PR) before the mobilization, including 13 complete responses (CRs). Eleven patients with MM achieved at least PR and four patients with MM were in stable disease before mobilization. The median number of apheresis was 3 (range, 1–6). The median yield of PBSC collections was 3.41 (0.13–38.11) × 106 CD34+ cells/kg. Thirty-four (77.3 %) patients had successful collections defined as at least 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg. The rate of successful collections was not different between the two underlying diseases (79.3 % in lymphoma and 73.3 % in MM). Of the entire cohort, 38 (86.4 %) of patients went on to receive an autologous transplant. Previous long-term use of high-risk drugs (>4 cycles use of alkylating agents, platinum-containing agents, or thalidomide) (HR 10.8, 95 % CI 1.1–110.0, P = 0.043) and low platelet count (<100 × 109/L) 1 day before the first apheresis (HR 27.9, 95 % CI 2.9–273.7, P = 0.004) were independent prognostic factors for predicting failure of PBSC re-mobilization using plerixafor and G-CSF. In conclusion, re-mobilization using plerixafor and G-CSF showed a success rate of 77.3 % in patients with lymphoma or MM who experienced prior failure of PBSC mobilization, and the majority of them underwent autologous transplant. Therefore, plerixafor-based re-mobilization was an effective method in poor mobilizers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Milpied N, Deconinck E, Gaillard F et al (2004) Initial treatment of aggressive lymphoma with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell support. N Engl J Med 350:1287–1295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bensinger W (2008) Stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in the era of novel drugs. J Clin Oncol 26:480–492

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gertz MA (2010) Current status of stem cell mobilization. Br J Haematol 150:647–662

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pavone V, Gaudio F, Guarini A et al (2002) Mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells with high-dose cyclophosphamide or the DHAP regimen plus G-CSF in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant 29:285–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Watts MJ, Ings SJ, Leverett D et al (2000) ESHAP and G-CSF is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and G-CSF for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients. Br J Cancer 82:278–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hiwase DK, Bollard G, Hiwase S et al (2007) 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 9:539–547

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pozotrigo M, Adel N, Landau H et al (2013) Factors impacting stem cell mobilization failure rate and efficiency in multiple myeloma in the era of novel therapies: experience at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Bone Marrow Transplant 48:1033–1039

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Giralt S, Stadtmauer EA, Harousseau JL et al (2009) 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 23:1904–1912

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bensinger W, Appelbaum F, Rowley S et al (1995) Factors that influence collection and engraftment of autologous peripheral-blood stem cells. J Clin Oncol 13:2547–2555

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ et al (2007) Impact of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell mobilization and engraftment post-peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Leukemia 21:2035–2042

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. To LB, Levesque JP, Herbert KE (2011) How I treat patients who mobilize hematopoietic stem cells poorly. Blood 118:4530–4540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Calandra G, McCarty J, McGuirk J et al (2008) AMD3100 plus G-CSF can successfully mobilize CD34+ cells from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease and multiple myeloma patients previously failing mobilization with chemotherapy and/or cytokine treatment: compassionate use data. Bone Marrow Transplant 41:331–338

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liles WC, Broxmeyer HE, Rodger E et al (2003) Mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells in healthy volunteers by AMD3100, a CXCR4 antagonist. Blood 102:2728–2730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Devine SM, Flomenberg N, Vesole DH et al (2004) Rapid mobilization of CD34+ cells following administration of the CXCR4 antagonist AMD3100 to patients with multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 22:1095–1102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. DiPersio JF, Micallef IN, Stiff PJ et al (2009) 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 27:4767–4773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. DiPersio JF, Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A et al (2009) 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 113:5720–5726

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Arcaini L, Laszlo D, Rizzi S et al (2011) Plerixafor and G-CSF for PBSC mobilization in patients with lymphoma who failed previous attempts with G-CSF and chemotherapy: a REL (Rete Ematologica Lombarda) experience. Leuk Res 35:712–714

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Worel N, Rosskopf K, Neumeister P et al (2011) Plerixafor and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma previously failing mobilization with G-CSF with or without chemotherapy for autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization: the Austrian experience on a named patient program. Transfusion 51:968–975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sheppard D, Bredeson C, Huebsch L et al (2014) A plerixafor-based strategy allows adequate hematopoietic stem cell collection in poor mobilizers: results from the Canadian Special Access Program. Bone Marrow Transplant 49:751–755

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Giralt S, Costa L, Schriber J et al (2014) Optimizing autologous stem cell mobilization strategies to improve patient outcomes: consensus guidelines and recommendations. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 20:295–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Basak GW, Jaksic O, Koristek Z et al (2011) Identification of prognostic factors for plerixafor-based hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Am J Hematol 86:550–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25:579–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS et al (2006) International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 20:1467–1473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Breitkreutz I, Lokhorst HM, Raab MS et al (2007) Thalidomide in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: influence of thalidomide treatment on peripheral blood stem cell collection yield. Leukemia 21:1294–1299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kwong YL, Kim WS, Lim ST et al (2012) SMILE for natural killer/T-cell lymphoma: analysis of safety and efficacy from the Asia Lymphoma Study Group. Blood 120:2973–2980

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Selleslag D, Dierickx D, Breems DA et al (2011) Plerixafor in poor stem cell mobilizers: the Belgian Compassionate Use Program. Acta Clin Belg 66:200–204

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hubel K, Fresen MM, Apperley JF et al (2012) European data on stem cell mobilization with plerixafor in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients. A subgroup analysis of the European Consortium of stem cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant 47:1046–1050

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hubel K, Fresen MM, Salwender H et al (2011) Plerixafor with and without chemotherapy in poor mobilizers: results from the German compassionate use program. Bone Marrow Transplant 46:1045–1052

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Duarte RF, Shaw BE, Marin P et al (2011) Plerixafor plus granulocyte CSF can mobilize hematopoietic stem cells from multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients failing previous mobilization attempts: EU compassionate use data. Bone Marrow Transplant 46:52–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shaughnessy P, Uberti J, Devine S et al (2013) Plerixafor and G-CSF for autologous stem cell mobilization in patients with NHL, Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma: results from the expanded access program. Bone Marrow Transplant 48:777–781

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Paripati H, Stewart AK, Cabou S et al (2008) Compromised stem cell mobilization following induction therapy with lenalidomide in myeloma. Leukemia 22:1282–1284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mazumder A, Kaufman J, Niesvizky R et al (2008) Effect of lenalidomide therapy on mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia 22:1280–1281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ford CD, Green W, Warenski S, Petersen FB (2004) Effect of prior chemotherapy on hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant 33:901–905

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ketterer N, Salles G, Moullet I et al (1998) Factors associated with successful mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in 200 patients with lymphoid malignancies. Br J Haematol 103:235–242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tournilhac O, Cazin B, Lepretre S et al (2004) Impact of frontline fludarabine and cyclophosphamide combined treatment on peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 103:363–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Waterman J, Rybicki L, Bolwell B et al (2012) Fludarabine as a risk factor for poor stem cell harvest, treatment-related MDS and AML in follicular lymphoma patients after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 47:488–493

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuittinen T, Nousiainen T, Halonen P et al (2004) Prediction of mobilisation failure in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant 33:907–912

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ozkurt ZN, Yegin ZA, Suyani E et al (2010) Factors affecting stem cell mobilization for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J Clin Apher 25:280–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wuchter P, Ran D, Bruckner T et al (2010) Poor mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells-definitions, incidence, risk factors, and impact on outcome of autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 16:490–499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bilgin YM, Visser O, Beckers EA et al (2015) Evaluation of Dutch guideline for just-in-time addition of plerixafor to stem cell mobilization in patients who fail with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor. Transfusion 55:1021–1027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Veltri L, Cumpston A, Shillingburg A et al (2015) Hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with “just-in-time” plerixafor approach is a cost-effective alternative to routine plerixafor use. Cytotherapy 17:1785–1792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. D’Addio A, Curti A, Worel N et al (2011) The addition of plerixafor is safe and allows adequate PBSC collection in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients poor mobilizers after chemotherapy and G-CSF. Bone Marrow Transplant 46:356–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Abhyankar S, DeJarnette S, Aljitawi O et al (2012) A risk-based approach to optimize autologous hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) collection with the use of plerixafor. Bone Marrow Transplant 47:483–487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Sanofi-Aventis Korea Ltd.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheolwon Suh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Authorship statement

J.S. Kim and C. Suh involved in design, data interpretation, and manuscript writing. J.S. Kim and C. Suh provided the conception, data interpretation and revising it critically for intellectual content. D.H. Yoon, S. Park, S.-S. Yoon, S.-G. Cho, C.-K. Min, J.-J. Lee, D.-H. Yang, J.-Y. Kwak, H.-S. Eom, W.S. Kim, H. Kim, Y.R. Do, and J.H. Moon involved in acquisition of data, analysis of data, and participating in comprehensive discussion. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Financial disclosure

The authors do not have any disclosures.

Highlights

• Re-mobilization using plerixafor and G-CSF showed a success rate of 77.3 % in patients with lymphoma or MM who experienced prior failure of stem cell mobilization and the majority of them went on to ASCT.

• Previous long-term use of high-risk drugs (>4 cycles) and low platelet count on 1 day before the first apheresis were risk factors for predicting failure of stem cell re-mobilization using plerixafor and G-CSF.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J.S., Yoon, D.H., Park, S. et al. Prognostic factors for re-mobilization using plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma previously failing mobilization with G-CSF with or without chemotherapy: the Korean multicenter retrospective study. Ann Hematol 95, 603–611 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-016-2589-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-016-2589-y

Keywords

Navigation