Salvage Bone Marrow Harvest in Patients Failing Plerixafor-Based Stem Cell Mobilization Attempt: Feasibility and Autologous Transplantation Outcomes

Etoposide + Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and Optional Plerixafor in Patients Who Failed Chemomobilization with or without Plerixafor

We conducted a retrospective study of 62 patients undergoing etoposide (2 g/m²) + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; 10 patients also received additional plerixafor) as a salvage stem cell mobilization regimen after previous unsuccessful chemomobilization with or without plerixafor. The median peak CD34⁺ values after etoposide + G-CSF ± plerixafor was 54.07 CD34⁺/μL compared with 9.6 CD34⁺/μL after previous mobilization attempts (P < .001). The median yield was 6.33 × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg per 2 apheresis. Etoposide + G-CSF ± plerixafor mobilization regimen resulted in 91.53% successful mobilizations and 89.83% of patients proceeding to autologous stem cell transplantation. All 7 patients who had previously failed plerixafor-based mobilization attempts were successfully mobilized with etoposide + G-CSF ± plerixafor and proceeded to autologous stem cell transplantation. The most common grades 3 to 4 adverse events of etoposide + G-CSF ± plerixafor were febrile neutropenia (69.35%), mucositis (51.62%), and bacteremia (20.97%). No fatal outcomes were observed. Rates of 12-month overall survival and progression-free survival were 88.71% and 70.97%, respectively. Etoposide + G-CSF ± plerixafor is an effective regimen for salvage stem cell mobilization also in patients who failed plerixafor, with most patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. The adverse event rate may warrant a decrease in the dose of etoposide.

Hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with "just-in-time" plerixafor approach is a cost-effective alternative to routine plerixafor use

BACKGROUND AIMS

Hematopoietic cell mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor results in superior CD34+ cell yield compared with G-CSF alone in patients with myeloma and lymphoma. However, plerixafor-based approaches may be associated with high costs. Several institutions use a "just-in-time" plerixafor approach, in which plerixafor is only administered to patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone. Whether such an approach is cost-effective is unknown.

METHODS

We evaluated 136 patients with myeloma or lymphoma who underwent mobilization with 2 approaches of plerixafor utilization. Between January 2010 and October 2012, 76 patients uniformly received mobilization with G-CSF and plerixafor. Between November 2012 and June 2014, 60 patients were mobilized with plerixafor administered only to those patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone.

RESULTS

The routine plerixafor group had a higher median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (62 versus 29 cells/μL, P < 0.001) and a higher median day 1 CD34+ yield (2.9 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg versus 2.1 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg, P = 0.001). The median total CD34+ collection was higher with routine plerixafor use (5.8 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg versus 4.5 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg, P = 0.007). In the "just-in-time" group, 40% (n = 24) completed adequate collection without plerixafor. There was no difference in mobilization failure rates. The mean plerixafor doses used was lower with "just-in-time" approach (1.3 versus 2.1, P = 0.0002). The mean estimated cost in the routine plerixafor group was higher (USD 27,513 versus USD 23,597, P = 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Our analysis demonstrates that mobilization with a just-in-time plerixafor approach is a safe, effective, and cost-efficient strategy for HPC collection.

Successful hematopoietic stem cell collection in patients who fail initial plerixafor mobilization for autologous stem cell transplant

We report our experience of collecting stem cells in patients who failed to mobilize sufficient hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) using plerixafor (P) in the initial mobilization attempt. Twenty four patients were identified who failed a first mobilization attempt using P. Of these, 22 patients received granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and two patients received cyclophosphamide (CY) + G-CSF in combination with P for the initial attempt. The agents used for second collection attempt were granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) + G-CSF (19 patients), G-CSF + P (three patients), CY + G-CSF (one patient), and bone marrow harvest (one patient). A median of 0.6 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg (range 0-1.97) were collected in the initial attempt. A second collection was attempted at a median of 22 days (range 15-127) after the first failed mobilization. The median CD34(+) cell dose collected with the second attempt was 1.1 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg (range 0-7.2). A third collection was attempted in six patients at median of 51 days (range 34-163) after the first failed mobilization. These patients collected a median of 1.1 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg (range 0-6.5). Total of 16 patients (67%) collected sufficient cells to undergo autologous stem cell transplant and eight patients (33%) were able to collect ≥2 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg in a single subsequent attempt. Our experience suggests that a majority of patients who fail primary mobilization despite use of P can collect sufficient HSC with a subsequent attempt using combination of G-CSF with either P or GM-CSF.

An effective mobilization strategy for lymphoma patients after failed upfront mobilization with plerixafor

In an otherwise eligible patient, inadequate mobilization of PBSCs is a limiting factor to proceeding with an auto-ASCT. In such situations, plerixafor is commonly added to improve PBSC collection yields along with cytokine (G-CSF alone) or chemomobilization (chemotherapy+G-CSF). Individually, both strategies are proven to be safe and effective. Here we report six patients who underwent successful mobilization with combination chemomobilization plus plerixafor after upfront failure of cytokine mobilization plus plerixafor. The median CD34(+) cell yield after chemomobilization was 2.48 × 10(6)/kg (range 0.99-8.49) after receiving one to two doses of plerixafor. All patients subsequently underwent ASCT without major unforeseen toxicities and engrafted successfully. No significant delays in time to neutrophil recovery were observed. Our experience highlights the safety and effectiveness of chemomobilization with plerixafor after G-CSF plus plerixafor (G+P) failure and suggests this is a viable salvage strategy after initial failed G+P mobilization.