Efficient Stem Cell Collection after Modified Cisplatin-Based Mobilization Chemotherapy in Patients with Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma

Peripheral blood stem cells mobilization in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphomas: A single-center experience

CONTEXT

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) is an established treatment for chemosensitive patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

AIMS

We present the results of using different salvage chemotherapy plus granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in R/R lymphoma patients.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

For salvage chemotherapy, 93 patients received platinum-containing regimens, 4 patients received cytarabine-containing regimens, and 5 patients received other regimens. Patient distributions were HL (n = 35) and NHL (n = 67).

RESULTS

In 87.2% of patients, first mobilization trial was successful (>2 × 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg). In 58.8% of patients, first apheresis season >5 × 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg collections was achieved. All 12.7% of patients were poorly mobilized at the first mobilization. There was no statistical difference between the previous chemotherapy numbers and failed mobilization ( P > 0.05). Five patients who were poorly mobilized and 4 patients who were successfully mobilized underwent a previous radiotherapy ( P < 0.05). Thirteen patients who were poorly mobilized in the first mobilization underwent a platinum-containing salvage regimen. At the time of the first mobilization, the average peripheral CD 34 counts in the successfully mobilized group were statistically higher than that in the poorly mobilized group ( P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that peripheral CD 34 cell count in the peripheral blood on the first apheresis day was a significant factor for more stem cell mobilization, fewer apheresis sessions, less volume, and earlier neutrophil engraftment for patients with R/R lymphoma and eligible for AHSCT. The history of the previous radiotherapy was a significant factor for poor mobilization.

Mobilization and Collection of Peripheral Blood Stem Cells in Adults: Focus on Timing and Benchmarking

Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) are preferentially used as a hematopoietic stem cell source for autologous blood stem cell transplantation (ABSCT) upon high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) in a variety of hemato-oncologic diseases. As a prerequisite, hematopoietic stem cells have to be mobilized into the peripheral blood (PB) and collected by leukapheresis (LP). Despite continuous improvements, e.g., the introduction of plerixafor, current challenges are the further optimization regarding the leukapheresis procedure, preventing collection failures, as well as benchmarking and harmonization of mobilization approaches between institutions.This chapter summarizes the current PBSC mobilization and collection approaches and is focusing on timely orchestration of mobilization therapy, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) application, and peripheral blood (PB) CD34⁺ cell assessment. Moreover, strategies for prediction and performance assessment of the PBSC collection yield are discussed.

Outcome after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

OBJECTIVE

For more than two decades, high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) and autologous blood stem cell transplantation (ABSCT) were treatment options for patients with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (B-NHL). However, the ideal timing and the collective patient benefits are still being debated.

METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 163 patients with B-NHL who received an HDT protocol followed by ABSCT between 2001 and 2007. Patients were analyzed according to the time point of HDT/ABSCT to compare upfront (directly after induction, n = 72, 44%) versus secondary transplantation (at first relapse, n = 91, 56%).

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 100% and 94% after upfront and secondary HDT/ABSCT, respectively. No significant differences were found for hematopoietic recovery and toxicity profile. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) probability were found to be significantly higher in the upfront HDT/ABSCT treatment group (P = .018 and P = .004). In multivariate analysis, upfront HDT/ABSCT and low IPI risk score had a significant beneficial effect on OS (P = .031 and P = .019).

CONCLUSION

HDT and ABSCT directly after induction chemotherapy were confirmed to be feasible with high PFS and OS rates. In addition, for patients with relapse after first-line therapy and consecutively poor prognosis, HDT/ABSCT also offers an effective treatment strategy.

Orchestration of Chemomobilization and G-CSF Administration for Successful Hematopoietic Stem Cell Collection

Successful collection of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) depends on the optimal orchestration of mobilization chemotherapy, granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) application, and CD34⁺ cell number assessment in the peripheral blood (PB). However, determining the optimal timing in accordance to the applied chemomobilization regimen can be challenging. Although most centers apply their own local timing schedules, a reliable timetable including the currently most often used mobilization regimens is lacking. We present a comprehensive analysis of the timing modalities for 11 of the most commonly used chemomobilization regimens. A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical and PBSC collection parameters (including duration of G-CSF application, time point of CD34⁺ assessment, PB CD34⁺ cell count, number of leukapheresis [LP] sessions, processed blood volume, and CD34⁺ collection results) of 91 representatively selected patients who had undergone stem cell mobilization at 2 collection centers. Six to 10 patients were analyzed per regimen with a variety of diagnoses, including multiple myeloma, malignant lymphoma, and sarcoma. No collection failures (<2 × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg body weight) were observed. All analyzed patients successfully reached their individual collection goal in adherence to the given schedule of chemotherapy, application of G-CSF, measurement of CD34⁺ cells, and subsequent LP. The presented data on the timing of chemomobilization, G-CSF application, and stem cell collection may be helpful in clinical decision making and contribute to a more transparent and predictable treatment process.

Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Mobilization with Ifosfamide, Carboplatin, and Etoposide Chemotherapy versus Plerixafor-Based Strategies in Patients with Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of chemo-mobilization with ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE) ± rituximab with plerixafor-based approaches in lymphoma patients have not been performed. We analyzed hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization outcomes in lymphoma patients undergoing chemo-mobilization with ICE (n = 35) compared with either routine plerixafor (n = 30) or "just in time" (JIT) plerixafor-based mobilization (n = 33). Chemo-mobilization provided a significantly higher total CD34(+) cell yield (median collection, 5.35 × 10(6) cells/kg for ICE versus 3.15 × 10(6) cells/kg for routine plerixafor and 3.6 × 10(6) cells/kg for JIT plerixafor, P < .001). The median day 1 yield of CD34(+) cells was not significantly different (median, 2.2 × 10(6) cells/kg in ICE versus 1.9 × 10(6) cells/kg in upfront plerixafor versus 1.7 × 10(6) cells/kg in JIT plerixafor, P = .20). There was no significant difference in the 3 groups in terms of total number of apheresis sessions performed (median, 2 in each group; P = .78). There were no mobilization failures (inability to collect at least 2 × 10(6) cells/kg) in the chemo-mobilization group, whereas 5 patients (16.7%) in the routine plerixafor and 3 patients (9.1%) in JIT group had mobilization failure (P = .04). Mean time to neutrophil engraftment was faster in the chemo-mobilization group, 10.3 days (±1.2) compared with 12.1 days (±3.6) in the routine plerixafor group and 11.6 days (±3.0) in the JIT group (P < .001) and mean time to platelet engraftment was 13.7 days (±.7) in ICE versus 20.3 days (±1.6) in routine plerixafor versus 17.1 days (± .9) in JIT group (P < .001). Red blood cell transfusions were significantly higher in the chemo-mobilization group (34.3% versus 0 versus 3.2% versus 1, P < .001) and so were the platelet transfusions (22.9% versus 0 versus 0, P < .001). Excluding the cost of chemotherapy administration, chemo-mobilization was associated with significantly less mobilization cost (average cost $17,601.76 in ICE versus $28,963.05 in routine and $25,679.81 in JIT, P < .001). Our data suggests that chemo-mobilization with ICE provides a higher total CD34(+) cell yield, lower rates of mobilization failure, faster engraftment, and lower cost compared to plerixafor-based approaches with comparable toxicity profile between the groups, except for higher transfusion requirements with chemo-mobilization.