PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell support is recommended in the treatment of eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of steady-state versus chemotherapy-based stem cell mobilization in our Hungarian patient population.
UNASSIGNED: The subjects were 210 MM patients who underwent stem cell mobilization procedure between 2018 and 2022. Solo granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered in 104 cases, while 106 patients received chemotherapy which was followed by G-CSF administration. We evaluated the ratio of successful mobilizations, the amount of collected stem cells, the incidence of infections and cost-effectivity in the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: In the steady-state group, there was a significantly higher need for plerixafor (45% vs. 13%, P < 0.001), unsuccessful stem cell mobilization was more frequent (11% vs. 3%, P = 0.024) and the mean amount of collected stem cells was lower (6.9 vs. 9.8 × 106, P < 0.001) than in the chemotherapy group. However, infections were less frequent (4% vs. 27%, P < 0.001) and the number of days spent in hospital was significantly lower (6 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001). Plerixafor was more frequently administered in those who had received lenalidomide or daratumumab than in those who had been treated with other regimens (41% vs. 23%, P = 0.007 and 78% vs. 23%, P < 0.001, respectively).
UNASSIGNED: Steady-state mobilization is a safe method; however, the higher rate of plerixafor administration and unsuccessful attempts may question its superiority to chemomobilization.
UNASSIGNED: The subjects were 210 MM patients who underwent stem cell mobilization procedure between 2018 and 2022. Solo granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered in 104 cases, while 106 patients received chemotherapy which was followed by G-CSF administration. We evaluated the ratio of successful mobilizations, the amount of collected stem cells, the incidence of infections and cost-effectivity in the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: In the steady-state group, there was a significantly higher need for plerixafor (45% vs. 13%, P < 0.001), unsuccessful stem cell mobilization was more frequent (11% vs. 3%, P = 0.024) and the mean amount of collected stem cells was lower (6.9 vs. 9.8 × 106, P < 0.001) than in the chemotherapy group. However, infections were less frequent (4% vs. 27%, P < 0.001) and the number of days spent in hospital was significantly lower (6 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001). Plerixafor was more frequently administered in those who had received lenalidomide or daratumumab than in those who had been treated with other regimens (41% vs. 23%, P = 0.007 and 78% vs. 23%, P < 0.001, respectively).
UNASSIGNED: Steady-state mobilization is a safe method; however, the higher rate of plerixafor administration and unsuccessful attempts may question its superiority to chemomobilization.
摘要：
■在符合条件的多发性骨髓瘤（MM）患者的治疗中，建议使用大剂量化疗，然后进行自体造血干细胞支持。这项研究的目的是比较匈牙利患者人群中稳态与基于化疗的干细胞动员的疗效和安全性。
■受试者是210名MM患者，他们在2018年至2022年之间接受了干细胞动员程序。应用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)104例,而106例患者接受化疗，随后给予G-CSF。我们评估了成功动员的比例，收集的干细胞的数量，两组的感染发生率和成本效益。
■在稳态组中，对plerixafor的需求显著增加(45%与13%,P<0.001)，不成功的干细胞动员更频繁(11%vs.3%,P=0.024），收集的干细胞的平均数量较低（6.9vs.9.8×106,P<0.001)高于化疗组。然而,感染频率较低(4%vs.27%,P<0.001），住院天数显着降低（6vs.14天,P<0.001)。与接受其他方案治疗的患者相比，接受来那度胺或达拉图单抗的患者更频繁地使用Plerixafor（41％vs.23%,P=0.007和78%vs.23%,分别为P<0.001)。
■稳态动员是一种安全的方法；然而，plerixafor给药的比率较高，尝试失败，可能会质疑其对化学移植的优越性。
■受试者是210名MM患者，他们在2018年至2022年之间接受了干细胞动员程序。应用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)104例,而106例患者接受化疗，随后给予G-CSF。我们评估了成功动员的比例，收集的干细胞的数量，两组的感染发生率和成本效益。
■在稳态组中，对plerixafor的需求显著增加(45%与13%,P<0.001)，不成功的干细胞动员更频繁(11%vs.3%,P=0.024），收集的干细胞的平均数量较低（6.9vs.9.8×106,P<0.001)高于化疗组。然而,感染频率较低(4%vs.27%,P<0.001），住院天数显着降低（6vs.14天,P<0.001)。与接受其他方案治疗的患者相比，接受来那度胺或达拉图单抗的患者更频繁地使用Plerixafor（41％vs.23%,P=0.007和78%vs.23%,分别为P<0.001)。
■稳态动员是一种安全的方法；然而，plerixafor给药的比率较高，尝试失败，可能会质疑其对化学移植的优越性。
