4.0 Article

Who should be really considered as a poor mobilizer in the plerixafor era?

期刊

TRANSFUSION AND APHERESIS SCIENCE
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 27-32

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2012.03.004

关键词

Poor mobilizers; Stem cell mobilization; CD34+cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with a number of peripheral CD34+ cells <= 20/mu L. have recently been defined in the literature as poor mobilizers. We retrospectively reviewed medical records from a total of 248 patients affected by hematological malignancies or solid tumors undergoing peripheral blood stem cell collection following chemotherapy plus G-CSF. On the basis of the CD34+ cell peak in peripheral blood following mobilization therapy, patients were defined as good mobilizers (group A, CD34+ cells >= 20/mu L), relative poor mobilizers (group B, CD34+ cells <20 and >= 8/mu L) and absolute poor mobilizers (group C, CD34+ cells <8/mu L). One hundred and seventy-seven (71%) patients resulted good mobilizers, 35 (14%) patients relative poor mobilizers and 36(15%) patients absolute poor mobilizers. Target of stem cell collection was >= 2.0 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg for each transplantation procedure. All patients in group A, 20 patients in group B (57%) and 1 patient in group C (2.7%) were able to collect >= 2.0 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg. The multivariate analysis confirmed that more than three lines of previous chemotherapy and a previous autologous PBSC transplantation negatively affect mobilization of CD34+ cells in peripheral blood. Our data suggest that a number of CD34+ cells <= 20/mu L does not always result in a failed stem cell collection and in fact in our patient series more than 70% of the patients defined as poor mobilizers have indeed collected the minimum number of 2.0 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg required for a successful transplantation. The use of new agent such as CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor might further improve mobilization efficacy in such patients. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据