Cyclophosphamide plus etoposide is a safe and effective mobilization regimen in patients with multiple myeloma

Comparison of two autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization strategies in patients with multiple myeloma: CE plus G-CSF versus G-CSF only: A single-center retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma, high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an essential therapeutic keystone. As for the stem cell mobilization procedure, different regimens have been established, usually consisting of a cycle of chemotherapy followed by application of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), although febrile neutropenia is a common complication. Following national guidelines, our institution decided to primarily use G-CSF only mobilization during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize the patients' risk of infection and to reduce the burden on the health system.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In this retrospective single-center analysis, the efficacy and safety of G-CSF only mobilization was evaluated and compared to a historic control cohort undergoing chemotherapy-based mobilization by cyclophosphamide and etoposide (CE) plus G-CSF.

RESULTS

Although G-CSF only was associated with a higher need for plerixafor administration (p < .0001) and a higher number of apheresis sessions per patient (p = .0002), we were able to collect the target dose of hematopoietic stem cells in the majority of our patients. CE mobilization achieved higher hematopoietic stem cell yields (p = .0015) and shorter apheresis sessions (p < .0001) yet was accompanied by an increased risk of febrile neutropenia (p < .0001). There was no difference in engraftment after ASCT.

DISCUSSION

G-CSF only mobilization is a useful option in selected patients with comorbidities and an increased risk of serious infections, especially in the wintertime or in future pandemics.

Therapeutic Effect and Adverse Event Rate of Different Treatment Methods in Patients with Multiple Myeloma and Renal Insufficiency

INTRODUCTION

This study involves the collation and analysis of clinical characteristics and laboratory findings in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) combined with renal insufficiency. The objective was to assess the impact of various treatment methods on patient outcomes and the incidence of adverse events in individuals with MM and renal insufficiency.

METHODS

We analyzed the correlation between clinical characteristics, gene loci, fluorescence in situ hybridization, treatment methods, and prognosis in patients with MM and renal insufficiency. The differences in hematological and therapeutic efficacy indexes between two groups subjected to different treatments were evaluated. The assessment of treatment effectiveness was based on the total effective rate, calculated as the sum of stringent CR rate, complete remission rate, very good partial remission rate, and partial remission rate.

RESULTS

(1) The renal insufficiency group exhibited higher percentages of bone marrow abnormal plasma cells, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), blood calcium, white blood cell count, percentage of neutrophils, and blood β2-microglobulin (β2-MG) levels compared to the normal renal function group. Conversely, hemoglobin levels and lymphocyte percentage were lower in the renal insufficiency group. Binary logistic regression analysis identified hemoglobin, blood calcium values, blood β2-MG, and LDH as independent risk factors for the development of renal insufficiency in patients with MM (p < 0.05). (2) Based on the Durie-Salmon staging criteria, the proportion of Stage III patients was the highest (up to 81.8%), indicating that patients with MM usually suffer from insidious disease, often with high tumor load and late-disease stage at the time of consultation. International Staging System (ISS) and Revised ISS staging also revealed a higher proportion of Stage III patients in the renal insufficiency group (p < 0.05), indicating a worse long-term prognosis in patients with MM and renal insufficiency. (3) Before treatment, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the analysis of various indices. Complications such as sepsis, herpes zoster, peripheral neuropathy, thrombosis, secondary pulmonary infection, and cardiac complications were significantly lower in the BCD group (Bortezomib + Cyclophosphamide + Dexamethasone) compared to the BD group (Bortezomib + Dexamethasone) (χ2 = 6.333, p < 0.05), suggesting fewer complications with the BCD regimen. (4) The clinical treatment effects analysis indicated that the BCD group demonstrated a more significant impact than the BD group in the treatment of MM.

CONCLUSION

The application of the BCD regimen in the treatment of MM has shown significant efficiency, effectively alleviating clinical symptoms with fewer adverse reactions and high safety.