4.5 Article

Plerixafor plus granulocyte CSF can mobilize hematopoietic stem cells from multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients failing previous mobilization attempts: EU compassionate use data

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 52-58

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2010.54

关键词

plerixafor; AMD3100; PBSC; autologous transplantation; mobilization

资金

  1. Genzyme Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plerixafor was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) to enhance stem cell mobilization for autologous transplant in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma. In this study, we present the first European compassionate use experience in mobilization failures, patients who are hardest to remobilize but were not included in registration trials. A total of 56 consecutive patients from 15 centers in Spain and the United Kingdom were included: age 60 (33-69) years; 29 men (32 with myeloma and 24 with lymphoma); 2 lines of previous chemotherapy (1-10); 73 previously failed mobilization attempts with G-CSF (28), chemotherapy plus G-CSF (43) or G-CSF plus SCF(2). Overall, 71% of patients reached >= 10 CD34+ cells per mu L with plerixafor on day 5 after a 7.6-fold expansion from day 4. A total of 42 patients (75%) collected >= 2 x 10(6), average 3.0 +/- 1.7 (0.4-10.6) CD34+ cells per kg with plerixafor plus G-CSF. There were no severe drug-related adverse events. In all, 35 patients (63%) underwent transplant, receiving an average of 3.1 +/- 1.2 (1.9-7.7) x 10(6) CD34+ cells per kg. All patients engrafted neutrophils (day 12; 13.4 +/- 0.8; 8-30) and platelets (day 15; 18.5 +/- 2.4; 8-33). In our experience, plerixafor offers an effective alternative to collect sufficient CD34+ cells for autologous SCT from patients who fail conventional mobilization methods, with good tolerance and a high success rate. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2011) 46, 52-58; doi:10.1038/bmt.2010.54; published online 22 March 2010

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

4.5
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