Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020 Feb;55(2):356-366. doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0676-0. Epub 2019 Sep 18.

Results from a multicenter, noninterventional registry study for multiple myeloma patients who received stem cell mobilization regimens with and without plerixafor.

Author information

1
Queens University, Belfast, UK. curlymorris_cliff@yahoo.com.
2
Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
3
Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
4
Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.
5
Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
6
University Hospital of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
7
Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
8
Imperial College London, London, UK.
9
Charles University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
10
St. James Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
11
Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
12
Skanes University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
13
Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
14
European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Leiden, The Netherlands.
15
University Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
16
Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA.
17
Hospital Saint Antoine, Paris, France.
18
University Hospital, Hamburg, Germany.

Abstract

Plerixafor plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) enhances the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) for collection and subsequent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). This international, multicenter, noninterventional registry study (NCT01362972), evaluated long-term outcomes for MM patients who received plerixafor versus other mobilization regimens. The comparisons were: G-CSF + plerixafor (G-CSF + P) versus G-CSF-; G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G-CSF + C); and G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C. Propensity score matching was used to balance groups. Primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) after transplantation. After propensity matching, 77 versus 41 patients in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF cohorts, 129 versus 129 in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + C cohorts, and 117 versus 117 in the G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C cohorts were matched, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in a smaller sample size and imbalances were not completely overcome. For both PFS and OS, the upper limits of the hazard ratio 95% confidence intervals exceeded prespecified boundaries; noninferiority was not demonstrated. CIR rates were higher in the plerixafor cohorts. G-CSF + P remains an option for the mobilization of HSCs in poor mobilizers with MM with no substantial differences in PFS, OS, and CIR in comparison with other regimens.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Nature Publishing Group Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center