Current status of art mobilization in Myeloma

Original vs. Generic Plerixafor for the Mobilization of Stem Cells in Multiple Myeloma Patients

This study investigates the efficacy and safety of generic plerixafor (Pleksor - Gen Pharma) compared to the original plerixafor (Mozobil - Sanofi) in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing ASCT. A total of 59 patients from three centers, who underwent ASCT between 2018 and 2023, were included and divided into two groups: Mozobil (M) group (n = 32) and Pleksor (P) group (n = 27). Plerixafor was administered as a just-in-time approach with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone or with cyclophosphamide (Cy) + G-CSF mobilization. The study aimed to assess mobilization success and engraftment kinetics. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, RT history, previous lines of treatment, pretransplant lenalidomide cycles (p = 0.778, 0.165, 0.520, 0.094, 0.530, respectively). However, lenalidomide exposure was significantly higher in P group (18,8% vs. 81,5%, p < 0.001). Both groups achieved a similar total yield of CD34 + cells, and no serious side effects related to plerixafor were noted. Median platelet engraftment time was longer in P group, while neutrophil engraftment time was similar in both groups. This study demonstrates the comparable efficacy of generic plerixafor in myeloma patients, suggesting that it can be a cost-effective alternative with a similar safety profile. These findings contribute to the body of evidence on the use of generic plerixafor in specific patient cohorts, emphasizing its efficacy and safety for ASCT in a sole multiple myeloma patient cohort.

Stem Cell Mobilization Performed with Different Doses of Cytarabine in Plasma Cell Myeloma Patients Relapsing after Previous Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-A Multicenter Report by the Polish Myeloma Study Group

Salvage autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) may be used to treat relapse of plasma cell myeloma occurring after previous auto-HCT. When an insufficient number of hematopoietic stem cells have been stored from the initial harvest, remobilization is necessary. Here, we aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of different doses of cytarabine (total 800 vs. 1600 vs. 2400 mg/m2) for remobilization. Sixty-five patients, 55% male, with a median age at remobilization 63 years, were included. Remobilization was performed with cytarabine_800 in 7, cytarabine_1600 in 36, and cytarabine_2400 in 22 patients. Plerixafor rescue was used in 25% of patients receiving cytarabine_1600 and 27% of those receiving cytarabine_2400. Patients administered cytarabine_800 were not rescued with plerixafor. Remobilization was successful in 80% of patients (57% cytarabine_800; 86% cytarabine_1600; 77% cytarabine_2400; p = 0.199). The yield of collected CD34+ cells did not differ between the different cytarabine doses (p = 0.495). Patients receiving cytarabine_2400 were at the highest risk of developing severe cytopenias, requiring blood product support, or having blood-stream infections. One patient died of septic shock after cytarabine_2400. In summary, remobilization with cytarabine is feasible in most patients. All doses of cytarabine allow for successful remobilization. Cytarabine_2400 is associated with higher toxicity; therefore, lower doses (800 or 1600 mg/m2) seem to be preferable.

On-demand plerixafor added to high-dose cyclophosphamide and pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the mobilization of patients with multiple myeloma: a treatment with high effectiveness, convenient, and affordable cost

Objective

The combination of high-dose cyclophosphamide (HD-Cy) (3g/m2) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and on-demand plerixafor (PXF) has been considered an effective mobilization regimen of patients with multiple myeloma(MM). However, the daily multi-injection regimen of G-CSF poses challenges. This study delves into the efficiency and cost implications of a novel approach, using HD-Cy alongside pegylated G-CSF (PEG G-CSF) and on-demand PXF. Unlike G-CSF, which necessitates daily injections, the half-life of PEG G-CSF extended allows for a single injection.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 350 MM patients, which were categorized based on their mobilization regimens: Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF (n=66), Cy+PEG G-CSF (n=91), Cy+ G-CSF (n=169), and G-CSF+PXF (n=24).

Results

Mobilization with Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF(8.79)yielded a notably higher median CD34+ cell count compared to the other regimens: Cy+PEG G-CSF(4.96), Cy+G-CSF (4.65), and G-CSF+PXF (2.99) (P<0.001). The percentage of patients who achieved >6×106/kg CD34+ cells was significantly higher in the Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF group (77.3%) than in the other mobilization regimens: Cy+PEG G-CSF (41.8%), Cy+ G-CSF (37.3%), and G-CSF+PXF (8.3%) (P<0.001). From a cost perspective, the Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF approach was more economical than the G-CSF+PXF strategy but was marginally costlier than the other two methods. A multivariate assessment highlighted that the combination of Cy+PEG G-CSF with on-demand PXF had a superior potential to achieve the desired harvest (6×106/kg) compared to the Cy+PEG G-CSF protocol without PXF. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each 1% increase in the probability of achieving a successful optimal harvest was $ 97.02 per patient. The incidence of neutropenic fever was 3.0% in the Cy+PEG G-CSF+/-PXF group.

Conclusion

The combination of on-demand PXF with HD-Cy and PEG G-CSF offers a cost-effective approach with a high mobilization success rate, manageable side effects, and the convenience of fewer injections. It stands as a promising mobilization strategy for MM patients.

Is neutropenic fever an obstacle to effective stem cell harvesting?

INTRODUCTION

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a well-established consolidation treatment for many hematologic cancers which delivers prolonged survival. A subset of patients' adequate stem cell harvest is not achievable with a solitary use of granulocyte colony-stimulating agents (G-CSF). Generally, chemomobilization is employed for patients failing G-CSF and its most feared complication febrile neutropenia (FN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Here, we aimed to investigate the impact of the FN in chemomobilization on apheresis outcomes and engraftment. One hundred and eighty-three patients with the diagnosis of lymphoma or myeloma who underwent chemomobilization between 2015 and 2020 were included in the study.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients experienced FN. All patients received G-CSF. All myeloma patients were mobilized with 4 g/m2 cyclophosphamide, but it was heterogeneous for lymphoma patients. The precollection blood counts, harvested CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs)/kg, apheresis count, and engraftment durations were recorded. Preapheresis leukocyte and platelet were lower in the FN group (P = 0,004 and P = 0,001). Peripheral CD34 HSCs and total harvested CD34 HSCs were similar among groups (P = 0.25 and P = 0.9). More apheresis was needed in the FN group, but it was not significant (P = 0.07). Undergoing ASCT was similar (P = 0.7); however, platelet and neutrophil engraftment durations were slower in the FN group (P = 0.05 and P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Harvesting sufficient CD34+ HSCs from patients with FN is still feasible; however, FN treatment should begin promptly, and further apheresis sessions may be required.

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.

Stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients relapsing after previous autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A multicenter report by the Polish Myeloma Study Group

BACKGROUND

Salvage autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT) may be used to treat relapse of multiple myeloma occurring after previous autoHSCT. When insufficient number of hematopoietic stem cells was stored from the initial harvest, remobilization of stem cells is necessary.

PURPOSE

The analysis of stem cell remobilization after previous autoHSCT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight patients, 60% males, median 59 years, were included. Median time interval between autoHSCT and remobilization was 42 months. The first remobilization was performed mostly after chemotherapy: cyclophosphamide (33%), cytarabine (43%), and etoposide (19%).

RESULTS

The first remobilization was successful in 67% patients. About 19% patients required plerixafor rescue, among whom it allowed for successful harvesting in 14%. Use of cyclophosphamide, cytarabine, and etoposide allowed for successful remobilization in 53%, 84%, and 55% patients, respectively. Patients treated with cytarabine had the highest yield of CD34+ cells (median 7.5 × 10⁶ /kg vs 5.8 and 2.4 for etoposide and cyclophosphamide, P = .001). Higher percentage of patients was able to collect ≥2 × 10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg during one leukapheresis after cytarabine (76% vs 21% for cyclophosphamide vs 36% for etoposide, P = .001). Cytarabine use was associated with lower risk of remobilization failure OR = 0.217, P = .02. Toxicity comprised mostly hematological toxicity (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia). One patient succumbed to septic shock.

CONCLUSION

Remobilization after previous autoHSCT is feasible only in a proportion of patients. Cytarabine is associated with the highest rate of successful mobilization and the highest yield of mobilized CD34+ cells. The toxicity requires careful surveillance of these patients.

Low-Dose Cyclophosphamide versus Intermediate-High-Dose Cyclophosphamide versus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Alone for Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Novel Agents: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

The optimal stem cell (SC) mobilization strategy for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) remains a matter of debate. Possible approaches include low or high doses of cyclophosphamide (Cy), other chemotherapeutic agents, or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone. The scope of the study was to compare low-dose Cy plus G-CSF versus intermediate-high-dose Cy plus G-CSF versus G-CSF alone for SC mobilization in MM, in terms of efficacy and safety. We retrospectively analyzed 422 MM patients undergoing SC mobilization in 6 Italian centers, including 188 patients who received low-dose Cy (LD-Cy group, defined as 2 g/m²), 163 patients who received intermediate-high-dose Cy (HD-Cy group, defined as ≥ 3 g/m²), and 71 patients who received G-CSF alone (G-CSF group). The median peak of circulating CD34+ cells was 77/µL in the LD-Cy group, 92/µL in the HD-Cy group, and 55/µL in the G-CSF group (P = .0001). The median amount of SCs collected was 9.1 × 10⁶/kg, 9.7 × 10⁶/kg, and 5.6 × 10⁶/kg in the 3 groups, respectively (P = .0001). The rate of mobilization failure (defined as failure to collect ≥2 × 10⁶/kg) was 3.7% in the LD-Cy group, 3.4% in the HD-Cy group, and 4.3% in the G-CSF group (P = .9). The target SC dose of at least 4 × 10⁶/kg was reached in 90.4%, 91.1%, and 78.6% of the patients in these 3 groups, respectively (P = .014). The "on demand" use of plerixafor was higher in the G-CSF group (76%) compared with the LD-Cy group (19%) and the HD-Cy group (6%). In multivariate analysis, G-CSF mobilization and previous use of melphalan or radiotherapy were independently associated with failure to collect the target SC dose of ≥4 × 10⁶/kg. No impacts of age, blood counts, or previous treatment with lenalidomide, bortezomib, or carfilzomib were observed. Our results suggest that LD-Cy may be considered for successful SC mobilization in patients with MM.

Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma

The treatment of patients with multiple myeloma has changed in the last decades, with an improved median survival of 8-10 years. The current treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients eligible for autologous transplantation consists of 4 phases: pretransplant, induction, transplant, post-transplant consolidation and maintenance. Even today, a long-term disease control is the goal of multiple myeloma treatment in current clinical practice. In this review we discuss the role of autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma, the eligibility of patients for transplantation and the usefulness of an upfront tandem transplantation. The assessment of frailty and significant comorbidities plays an important role in determining transplant eligibility. Careful patient selection based on overall health status is crucial to ensure a balance between risks and benefits. In the era of induction regimens with new agents, upfront autologous transplantation remains the standard of care for young patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma due to the longer progression-free survival showed in randomized clinical studies. With the currently available data, the tandem transplantation in multiple myeloma may be considered in patients with high-risk cytogenetics, in particular, those who did not receive a new triplet combination or those with a lower response than very good partial response following their first transplantation.

Granisetron transdermal system and dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in multiple myeloma patients receiving chemo-mobilization: An observational real-world study of effectiveness and safety

PURPOSE

Cyclophosphamide (CY) in a dose of 2-4 g/m² is widely used for hemopoietic progenitor stem cells mobilization. CY administration is associated with several adverse effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of granisetron transdermal system (GTDS) plus dexamethasone in the management of CINV in MM patients undergoing chemo-mobilization with CY.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, observational, real world study, GTDS plus dexamethasone was administered to MM patients receiving chemo-mobilization based on CY 2 g/m2 plus G-CSF in an outpatient setting. The rate of complete response was evaluated as the main outcome. Other outcomes were rate of complete control of CINV, incidence of nausea/vomiting of any grade and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were enrolled. A complete response was achieved in 45.5 % of patients; among them, 39.77 % attained complete control of CINV. Nausea and vomiting never occurred in 34.1 % and 45.5 % of patients, respectively. No episodes of grade 3-4 nausea and/or vomiting were documented. GTDS was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In real world, GTDS provided an innovative, effective, and well-tolerated control of CINV in MM patients after chemo-mobilization with CY. The study found out effectiveness of a non-invasive delivery system of antiemetic.

VTD in comparison with VCD does not affect stem cell yields with G-CSF only mobilization

Triplet induction regimens are standard of care for newly diagnosed transplant eligible multiple myeloma patients. The combinations of bortezomib and dexamethasone with either cyclophosphamide (VCD) or thalidomide (VTD) are widely used. There are no data available on the impact of the two regimens on stem cell harvest by using G-CSF only mobilization. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed data from our national registry. The outcome measures were mobilization failure, CD34+ cell counts on collection day, number of apheresis procedures, and the number of collected cells. Overall, 72 patients were treated with either VCD or VTD. The mobilization failure rates were 7% and 9% (p = 0.771) and the total number of collected stem cells were 7.0 × 106 and 6.7 × 106 per kg body weight (p = 0.710) for VCD and VTD, respectively. We found no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the outcome measures. The addition of thalidomide to bortezomib and dexamethasone (VTD) does not adversely affect stem cell harvest in patients mobilized with G-CSF only.

Utilization of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) consensus statement

Over the last two decades, the utilization of various novel therapies in the upfront or salvage settings has continued to improve survival outcomes for patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM). Thus, the conventional role for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in MM either in the form of an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or an allogeneic stem cell transplant (Allo-SCT) warrants re-evaluation, given the aforementioned clinical advances. Here, we present a consensus statement of our multidisciplinary group of over 30 Mayo Clinic physicians with a special interest in the care of patients with MM and provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of HSCT in MM. We specifically address topics that include the role and timing of an ASCT for MM in the era of novel agents, eligibility for an ASCT, post-ASCT consolidation, and maintenance options, and finally the utility of an upfront tandem ASCT, salvage second ASCT, and an allo-SCT in MM.