Abstract
Abstract 3211
Poster Board III-148
Although autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has become standard of care for many patients with hematologic malignancies, many patients fail to collect a minimum number of CD34 + stem cells to support high dose chemotherapy and ASCT. Recently, plerixafor, a CXCR4 antagonist, was FDA approved for use in combination with G-CSF for autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with NHL or Multiple Myeloma. In February 2009, we commenced a risk adapted approach to the utilization of plerixafor.
The study was restricted to patients mobilized with GCSF alone and patients undergoing chemotherapy primed PBSC mobilization were excluded. Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization was commenced with G-CSF at 10 mcg/kg/day. On day 4, a peripheral blood (PB) CD34 count was measured. For patients whose PB CD34 was ≥10/μL, apheresis was commenced the following morning. For patients whose PB CD34 was <10/μL, it was measured again on day 5; if ≥10/μL then apheresis was commenced the following morning. If PB CD34 was <10/μL on day 5, plerixafor (0.24 mg/kg sc) was administered on the evening of day 5 and apheresis was commenced the following day (Group A). In addition, during apheresis, for patients whose collection yield was < 0.5 × 106 CD34/kg, in the absence of instrument failure or problems with the collection procedure, plerixafor was added (Group B). Morning administration of G-CSF and evening dosing of plerixafor continued daily until apheresis was complete.
From February to July 2009, 174 mobilization attempts occurred; 27 with chemotherapy and 147 with cytokines alone. The 147 pts who underwent mobilization with cytokines alone are presented here. The underlying diagnosis was as follows: Myeloma 61 pts, NHL 54 pts, Amyloid 17 pts, Hodgkin 10 pts, POEMS 4 pts and 1 pt with a solid tumor. For the entire group the median number of CD34 cells collected was 5.5 × 106 CD34/kg (range 0.1-17). The median number of apheresis was 3 (range 1-12). 67 patients (46%) received plerixafor; 37 patients started plerixafor during mobilization (Group A) and 30 patients during collections due to a poor yield (Group B). 12 pts of the 37 received plerixafor on day 4 because of prior mobilization failure or high risk of mobilization failure and are included in Group A. Table 1 outlines the details of mobilization and collection by groups. By disease category, of the 61 patients with MM, 28 (46%) received plerixafor (8 Group A and 20 Group B). Median apheresis in all the MM pts was 2 (range 1-12) with a total of 6.8 × 106 CD34/kg (2.2-16.7). In the 54 NHL pts, 32 (59%) received plerixafor (24 Group A and 8 Group B). Median apheresis for all pts with NHL was 3 (range 1-7) with a total of 4.6 × 106 CD34/kg (range 0-11.4). Overall, only 7 of 147 (5%) mobilization attempts failed to achieve a minimum of 2 × 106 CD34/kg. This compares to a 22% failure rate prior to institution of this risk adapted approach.
In conclusion, implementing this risk adapted approach allows poor mobilizers to be identified promptly and for plerixafor to be initiated during mobilization and collection, thereby reducing the number of mobilization failures. In patients who predictably would not have successful collection based on a PB CD34 <10/μL, addition of plerixafor results in a majority of patients achieving an adequate collection. This risk adapted approach may be more cost effective than reattempting mobilization after a prior failure or utilizing combination G-CSF and plerixafor for upfront mobilization.
Table 1. Mobilization and Collection data. All patients N=147 Group A1 N=37 Group B2 N=30 No Plerixafor N=80 PB CD34 day 4 Median 11 0 7 19 Range 0-331 0-7 0-32 0-331 PB CD34 day 5 Median 10 4.5 12 15 Range 0-51 2-9 11-23 9-51 Apheresis Yield Median 5.5 4.4 6.0 6.2 Range 0.1-17 3.1-12.7 3.0-12.2 2-17 Number of Apheresis Median 3 3 5 2 Range 1-12 1-7 4-12 1-8 Days of Plerixafor Median n/a 3 2 n/a Rang 1-7 1-8 1 Group A – Plerixafor initiated prior to apheresis 2 Group B – Plerixafor initiated during apheresis
Disclosures
No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Comparison of High-Dose Cyclophosphamide Plus G-CSF with G-CSF Alone for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in MM