Cost and efficacy of peripheral stem cell mobilization strategies in multiple myeloma

The Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy-Based Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma Patients Who Are Poor Responders to Induction: The Mayo Clinic Experience

We report the outcomes of 117 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who received novel agent induction, had a poor response to induction, and were mobilized using intravenous intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide (82%) or VD-PACE (18%) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and on-demand plerixafor. The median progression-free survival and overall survival of the chemo-mobilized cohort were 21 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-71) and 58 months (95% CI, 47-80), respectively. We compared our cohort to a 117-patient cohort matched by the level of response at pretransplant evaluation. The matched patients were mobilized with G-CSF and on-demand plerixafor without chemotherapy. Patients receiving chemo-mobilization had higher stem cell yields than the growth-factor-only cohort (median, 10.7 × 10⁶ cells/kg vs. 8.77 × 10⁶ cells/kg, respectively; P < .001). The safety profile of chemo-mobilization was favorable, and there was no difference between the two groups in length of hospitalization during autologous stem cell transplantation (P = .95), days to neutrophil engraftment (P = .22), days to platelet engraftment (P = .27), or risk of bacteremia (P = .52). Twenty-nine percent of the chemo-mobilized cohort and 65% of the matched cohort required plerixafor for adequate mobilization (P < .001). Chemo-mobilization enhances stem cell collection without adversely impacting the post-transplant clinical course.

Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma: Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Cyclophosphamide +/- Plerixafor versus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor +/- Plerixafor in the Lenalidomide Era

Growth factor and chemotherapy-based stem cell mobilization strategies are commonly used to treat patients with multiple myeloma. We retrospectively compared 398 patients mobilized between 2017 and 2020 using either cyclophosphamide (4 g/m²) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or G-CSF alone, with on demand plerixafor (PXF) in both groups. Although total CD34⁺ yield was higher after chemomobilization compared with G-CSF +/- PXF (median, 13.6 × 10⁶/kg versus 4.4 × 10⁶/kg; P < .01), achievement of ≥2 × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells (95% versus 93.7%; P = .61) and rates of mobilization failure (5% versus 6.3%; P = .61) were similar. Fewer patients required PXF with chemomobilization (12.3% versus 49.5%; P < .01), and apheresis sessions were fewer (median, 1 [range, 1 to 4] versus 2 [range, 1 to 5]). The rate of complications, including neutropenic fever, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations, was higher after chemomobilization (30% versus 7.4%; P < .01). Previous use of ≤6 cycles of lenalidomide did not impair cell yield in either group. The median cost of mobilization was 17.4% lower in the G-CSF +/- PXF group (P = .01). Between group differences in time to engraftment were not clinically significant. Given similar rates of successful mobilization, similar engraftment time, and less toxicity and lower costs compared with chemomobilization, G-CSF with on-demand PXF may be preferable in myeloma patients with adequate disease control and limited lenalidomide exposure.

Chemotherapy-based versus chemotherapy-free stem cell mobilization (± plerixafor) in multiple myeloma patients: an Italian cost-effectiveness analysis

Given the availability and efficacy of the mobilizing agent plerixafor in augmenting hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), there is a strong case for comparing the cost-effectiveness of mobilization with G-CSF + cyclophosphamide versus G-CSF alone. This study investigated the cost and effectiveness (i.e., successful 4 million-CD34⁺ collection) of G-CSF alone versus high-dose cyclophosphamide (4 g/m²) + G-CSF mobilization (± on-demand plerixafor) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) eligible for autograft in Italy. A decision tree-supported cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) model in MM patients was developed from the societal perspective. The CEA model compared G-CSF alone with cyclophosphamide 4 g/m² + G-CSF (± on-demand plerixafor) and was populated with demographic, healthcare and non-healthcare resource utilization data collected from a questionnaire administered to six Italian oncohematologists. Costs were expressed in Euro (€) 2019. The CEA model showed that G-CSF alone was strongly dominant versus cyclophosphamide + G-CSF ( ± on-demand plerixafor), with incremental savings of €1198.59 and an incremental probability of a successful 4 million-CD34⁺ apheresis (+0.052). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base-case results. In conclusion, chemotherapy-free mobilization (± on-demand plerixafor) is a “good value for money” option for MM patients eligible for autograft.

Autologous stem-cell collection following VTD or VRD induction therapy in multiple myeloma: a single-center experience

Triplet-drug regimen bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) are considered as standard of care induction prior autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in myeloma. In addition to improve response rate, induction therapy should preserve an adequate stem-cell collection. In the present retrospective study, we analyzed stem-cell collection in 325 newly diagnosed myeloma patients who received either VTD or VRD induction before ASCT. Stem-cell mobilization consisted of intravenous cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF. Plerixafor was administered preemptively to rescue mobilization. In comparison with VTD, VRD induction was associated with a more frequent use of plerixafor (19.3% versus 5.4%, p = 0.004) and with an increased number of apheresis to reach adequate collection (>2 apheresis required in 42.3% versus 30.2%, p = 0.05). Moreover, more patients experienced collection failure in the VRD group (6% versus 1.8%, p = 0.004). The median number of CD34-positive cells (×10⁶/kg) was lower in the VRD group: 8.5 versus 9.3 (p = 0.05) in the VTD group. The vast majority of patients underwent ASCT (93% versus 98%, in VRD and VTD group, respectively). These data highlight the need of optimal stem-cell collection strategy, especially in the context of tandem transplantation and incorporation of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody into induction.