Impact of the number of cryopreserved CD34+ cells in the infused blood grafts on hematologic recovery and survival in myeloma patients after autologous stem cell transplantation: Experience from the GOA study

Impact of plerixafor use in the mobilization of blood grafts for autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation

Plerixafor (PLER), a reversible antagonist of the CXC chemokine receptor type 4, has been in clinical use for mobilization of blood grafts for autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for about 15 years. Initially PLER was investigated in placebo-controlled trials with the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim. It has also been used in combination with chemotherapy plus G-CSF in patients who had failed a previous mobilization attempt or appeared to mobilize poorly with current mobilization (preemptive use). This review summarizes what is known regarding addition of PLER to standard mobilization regimens. PLER increases mobilization of CD34+ cells, decreases the number of apheresis sessions needed to achieve collection targets and increases the proportion of patients who can proceed to AHCT. It appears also to increase the amount of various lymphocyte subsets in the grafts collected. In general, hematologic recovery after AHCT has been comparable to patients mobilized without PLER, although slower platelet recovery has been observed in some studies of patients who mobilize poorly. In phase III studies, long-term outcome has been comparable to patients mobilized without PLER. This also appears to be the case in patients receiving plerixafor for poor or suboptimal mobilization of CD34+ cells. In practice, PLER is safe and has not been shown to increase tumor cell mobilization.

Loss of CD34+ Cells and Effect of the Number of Viable Cryopreserved CD34+ Cells in the Infused Blood Grafts on Hematologic Recovery, Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in NHL Patients After Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

PATIENTS

This post-hoc study aimed to find out factors affecting graft viable CD34+ cell loss during processing and cryopreservation in 129 non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) and the impact of a low (< 2.0 × 106/kg, group A) and a decent number (≥ 2 × 106/kg, group B) of viable CD34+ cells infused on the hematologic recovery, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after auto-SCT.

RESULTS

The median loss of viable CD34+ cells during cryopreservation was higher in group A (47% vs. 19%, p < .001). A higher yield of CD34+ cells at the first apheresis in group B (p = .002) was linked with greater loss of viable graft CD34+ cells after cryopreservation. Filgrastim (FIL) use for mobilization seemed to associate with higher viable CD34+ cell loss compared to pegfilgrastim (PEG) or lipegfilgrastim (LIPEG) in both groups (in group A FIL 66 vs. PEG 35%, p = .006; in group B FIL 37 vs. PEG 15 vs. LIPEG 13%, p < .001). Hematologic recovery after auto-SCT was faster in group B. Neither viable CD34+ cell loss during storage nor viable CD34+ cell number < 2.0 × 106/kg infused affected on PFS or OS.

CONCLUSIONS

G-CSF type used in mobilization and mobilization capacity were found to correlate with viable CD34+ cell loss during processing and storage. Most importantly, low infused viable CD34+ cell count did not seem to impact on PFS or OS.

Mobilization Strategies in Myeloma Patients Intended for Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Background

Multiple myeloma is currently the leading indication for autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT). A prerequisite for AHCT is mobilization and collection of adequate blood graft to support high-dose therapy. Current mobilization strategies include granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone or in combination with chemotherapy most commonly cyclophosphamide (CY). More recently, plerixafor has become into agenda especially in patients who mobilize poorly. In the selection of a mobilization method, several factors should be considered.

Summary

Preplanned collection target is important as G-CSF plus plerixafor is more effective in the mobilization of CD34+ cells than G-CSF alone. On the other hand, CY plus G-CSF is superior to G-CSF only mobilization. Previous therapy and age of the patients are important considerations as G-CSF alone may not be effective enough in patients with risk factors for poor mobilization. These factors include extensive lenalidomide exposure, irradiation to bone marrow-bearing sites, higher age, or a previous mobilization failure. Also, local preferences and experiences as well as the number of apheresis needed are important issues as well as cost-effectiveness considerations. Mobilization method used may have implication for cellular composition of collected grafts, which might have an impact on posttransplant events such as hematologic and immune recovery in addition to also potential long-term outcomes.

Key Message

Currently, G-CSF alone and preemptive plerixafor if needed might be considered as a standard mobilization strategy in MM patients intended for AHCT.