Annals of Hematology

, Volume 86, Issue 8, pp 575–581 | Cite as

Ifosfamide, epirubicin, and etoposide (IEV) mobilize peripheral blood stem cells more efficiently than cyclophosphamide/etoposide

  • Christina Hart
  • Christian Blank
  • Stefan W. Krause
  • Reinhard Andreesen
  • Burkhard Hennemann
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support is an effective treatment in advanced multiple myeloma. In this study, we compare chemotherapy with ifosfamide, epirubicin, and etoposide (IEV) or cyclophosphamide and etoposide (CE) in 47 patients with multiple myeloma with regard to stem cell mobilization, toxicity, and tumor response. The proportion of patients reaching the threshold of >6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg body weight was significantly higher in the IEV group (97% vs 71%), and more CD34+ cells (10 × 106 vs 3.5 × 106 cells/kg; p = 0.002) could be collected by the first leukapheresis associated with less leukaphereses needed. Non-hematopoietic side effects were mild with nausea being more frequent after IEV treatment (30% vs 7%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia (thrombocytopenia) occurred in 89 and 100% (55 and 44%) of the patients. There was one treatment-related death due to septic shock in the IEV group. Grade 3/4 anemia was more frequent in the IEV group (19% vs 0%). Forty-two percent (IEV) and 50% (CE) received inpatient treatment for neutropenic fever. In 20 and 7% of the patients, a partial response was observed after IEV and CE. However, the overall response rate (complete response and partial tumor response) after mobilization and tandem high-dose chemotherapy was 75% after IEV and 78% after CE and, thus, independent of the mobilization. In summary, both treatment protocols can readily be used for the mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells with comparable major toxicities and similar tumor response rates. However, the efficiency of the stem cell mobilization was significantly higher after IEV treatment.

Keywords

Multiple myeloma Stem cell mobilization Stem cell transplantation CD34 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Attal MA, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, Sotto JJ, Fuzibet JG, Rossi JF, Casassus P, Maisonneuve H, Facon T, Ifrah N, Payen C, Bataille R (1996) A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 335(2):91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Desikan KR, Mattox S, Vesole D, Siegel D, Tricot G, Munshi N, Fassas A, Singhal S, Mehta J, Anaissie E, Dhodapkar D, Naucke S, Cromer J, Sawyer J, Epstein J, Spoon D, Ayers D, Cheson B, Crowley J (1999) Total therapy with tandem transplants for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 93:55–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Vesole DH, Naucke S, Cheson B, Mattox S, Bracy D, Salmon S, Jacobson J, Crowley J, Tricot G (1997) Superiority of tandem autologous transplantation over standard therapy for previously untreated multiple myeloma. Blood 89:789–793PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blade J, Samson D, Reece D, Apperley J, Bjorkstrand B, Gahrton G, Gertz M, Giralt S, Jagannath S, Vesole D (1998) Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant. Br J Haematol 102:1115–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Child JA, Morgan GJ, Davies FE, Owen RG, Bell SE, Hawkins K, Brown J, Drayson MT, Selby PJ (2003) High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 348:1875–1883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clavio M, Garrone A, Pierri I, Michelis GL, Balocco M, Albarello A, Varaldo R, Canepa P, Miglino M, Ballerini F, Canepa L, Gobbi M (2005) Ifosfamide, epirubicin, etoposide (IEV) and autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplant: a feasible and effective salvage treatment for lymphoid malignancies. Oncol Rep 14:933–940PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cullen M, Steven N, Billingham L, Gaunt C, Hastings M, Simmonds P, Stuart N, Rea D, Bower M, Fernando I, Huddart R, Gollins S, Stanley A (2005) Antibacterial prophylaxis after chemotherapy for solid tumors and lymphomas. N Engl J Med 353:988–998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Facon T, Avet-Loiseau H, Guillerm G, Moreau P, Genevieve F, Zandecki M, Lai JL, Leleu X, Jouet JP, Bauters F, Harousseau JL, Bataille R, Mary JY (2001) Chromosome 13 abnormalities identified by FISH analysis and serum beta2-microglobulin produce a powerful myeloma staging system for patients receiving high-dose therapy. Blood 97:1566–1571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fonseca R, Oken MM, Harrington D, Bailey RJ, Van Wier SA, Henderson KJ, Kay NE, Van Ness B, Greipp PR, Dewald GW (2001) Deletions of chromosome 13 in multiple myeloma identified by interphase FISH usually denote large deletions of the q arm or monosomy. Leukemia 15:981–986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gafter-Gvili A, Fraser A, Paul M, Leibovici L (2005) Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis reduces mortality in neutropenic patients. Ann Intern Med 142:979–995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gasparetto C (2004) Stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Cancer Control 11:119–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gojo I, Guo C, Sarkodee-Adoo C, Meisenberg B, Fassas A, Rapoport AP, Cottler-Fox M, Heyman M, Takebe N, Tricot G (2004) High-dose cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide for mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in patients with multiple myeloma: efficacy and toxicity. Bone Marrow Transplant 34:69–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, Crowley JJ, Barlogie B, Blade J, Boccadoro M, Child JA, Avet-Loiseau H, Kyle RA, Lahuerta JJ, Ludwig H, Morgan G, Powles R, Shimizu K, Shustik C, Sonneveld P, Tosi P, Turesson I, Westin J (2005) International Staging System for Multiple Myeloma. J Clin Oncol 23:3412–3420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ketterer N, Salles G, Raba M, Espinouse D, Sonet A, Tremisi P, Dumontet C, Moullet I, Eljaafari-Corbin A, Neidhardt-Berard EM, Bouafia F, Coiffier B (1998) High CD34(+) cell counts decrease hematologic toxicity of autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation. Blood 91:3148–3155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koc ON, Gerson SL, Cooper BW, Laughlin M, Meyerson H, Kutteh L, Fox RM, Szekely EM, Tainer N, Lazarus HM (2000) Randomized cross-over trial of progenitor-cell mobilization: high-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor plus G-CSF. J Clin Oncol 18:1824–1830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kroger N, Zeller W, Fehse N, Hassan HT, Kruger W, Gutensohn K, Lolliger C, Zander AR (1998) Mobilizing peripheral blood stem cells with high-dose G-CSF alone is as effective as with Dexa-BEAM plus G-CSF in lymphoma patients. Br J Haematol 102:1101–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lenhoff S, Hjorth M, Holmberg E, Turesson I, Westin J, Nielsen JL, Wisloff F, Brinch L, Carlson K, Carlsson M, Dahl IM, Gimsing P, Hippe E, Johnsen H, Lamvik J, Lofvenberg E, Nesthus I, Rodjer S (2000) Impact on survival of high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell support in patients younger than 60 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a population-based study. Nordic Myeloma Study Group. Blood 95:7–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McQuaker IG, Haynes AP, Stainer C, Anderson S, Russell NH (1997) Stem cell mobilization in resistant or relapsed lymphoma: superior yield of progenitor cells following a salvage regimen comprising ifosphamide, etoposide and epirubicin compared to intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide. Br J Haematol 98:228–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meisenberg B, Brehm T, Schmeckel A, Miller W, McMillan R (1998) A combination of low-dose cyclophosphamide and colony-stimulating factors is more cost-effective than granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors alone in mobilizing peripheral blood stem and progenitor cells. Transfusion 38:209–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mollee P, Pereira D, Nagy T, Song K, Saragosa R, Keating A, Crump M (2002) Cyclophosphamide, etoposide and G-CSF to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant 30:273–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Narayanasami U, Kanteti R, Morelli J, Klekar A, Al Olama A, Keating C, O’Connor C, Berkman E, Erban JK, Sprague KA, Miller KB, Schenkein DP (2001) Randomized trial of filgrastim versus chemotherapy and filgrastim mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells for rescue in autologous transplantation. Blood 98:2059–2064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pocali B, De Simone M, Annunziata M, Palmieri S, D’Amico MR, Copia C, Viola A, Mele G, Schiavone EM, Ferrara F (2004) Ifosfamide, epirubicin and etoposide (IEV) regimen as salvage and mobilization therapy for refractory or early relapsing patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 45:1605–1609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwartzberg LS, Weaver CH, Birch R, Manner C, Tauer K, Beeker T, Morgan-Ihrig C, MacAneny B, Leff R, Smith R, Hainsworth J, Greco T, Schwerkoske J, Murphy MN, Buckner CD (1998) A randomized trial of two doses of cyclophosphamide with etoposide and G-CSF for mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in 318 patients with stage II–III breast cancer. J Hematother 7:141–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Straka C, Hebart H, Adler-Reichel S, Werding N, Emmerich B, Einsele H (2003) Blood stem cell collections after mobilization with combination chemotherapy containing ifosfamide followed by G-CSF in multiple myeloma. Oncology 65(Suppl 2):94–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weaver CH, Schwartzberg LS, Birch R, Greco FA, Rhinehart S, Hainsworth J, Beeker T, Price H, Geier L, Foster J, West J, Hazelton B, Buckner CD (1997) Collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells after the administration of cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor: an analysis of 497 patients. Transfusion 37:896–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zinzani PL, Barbieri E, Visani G, Gherlinzoni F, Perini F, Neri S, Bendandi M, Ammendolia I, Salvucci M, Babini L (1994) Ifosfamide, epirubicin and etoposide (IEV) therapy in relapsed and refractory high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica 79:508–512PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zinzani PL, Tani M, Molinari AL, Stefoni V, Zuffa E, Alinari L, Gabriele A, Bonifazi F, Salvucci M, Tura S, Baccarani M (2002) Ifosfamide, epirubicin and etoposide regimen as salvage and mobilizing therapy for relapsed/refractory lymphoma patients. Haematologica 87:816–821PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Hart
    • 1
  • Christian Blank
    • 1
  • Stefan W. Krause
    • 1
  • Reinhard Andreesen
    • 1
  • Burkhard Hennemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Hematology and OncologyRegensburg University Medical CenterRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations