Cargando…

Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001)

SIMPLE SUMMARY: We conducted a prospective trial comparing single-dose etoposide (375 mg/m(2) for one day) plus G-CSF versus G-CSF alone, followed by risk-adapted plerixafor in myeloma patients. Despite significantly less frequent (p = 0.045) use of plerixafor in the etoposide group, the optimal col...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Sung-Soo, Shin, Seung-Hwan, Lee, Jung-Yeon, Jeon, Young-Woo, Yhang, Seung-Ah, Min, Chang-Ki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10572075/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37835477
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15194783
_version_ 1785120150860595200
author Park, Sung-Soo
Shin, Seung-Hwan
Lee, Jung-Yeon
Jeon, Young-Woo
Yhang, Seung-Ah
Min, Chang-Ki
author_facet Park, Sung-Soo
Shin, Seung-Hwan
Lee, Jung-Yeon
Jeon, Young-Woo
Yhang, Seung-Ah
Min, Chang-Ki
author_sort Park, Sung-Soo
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: We conducted a prospective trial comparing single-dose etoposide (375 mg/m(2) for one day) plus G-CSF versus G-CSF alone, followed by risk-adapted plerixafor in myeloma patients. Despite significantly less frequent (p = 0.045) use of plerixafor in the etoposide group, the optimal collection rates (CD34+ cells ≥ 6 × 10(6)/kg) were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.195). In addition, the rate of collected CD34+ cells of ≥ 8.0 × 10(6)/kg was significantly higher in the etoposide group. Our results suggest that single-dose etoposide plus G-CSF may be a better option for patients who are expected to receive two or more transplantations. ABSTRACT: To explore the optimal mobilization for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, we conducted a prospective trial comparing single-dose etoposide (375 mg/m(2) for one day) plus G-CSF versus G-CSF alone, followed by risk-adapted plerixafor. After randomization, 27 patients in the etoposide group and 29 patients in the G-CSF alone group received mobilizations. Six (22.2%) patients in the etoposide group and 15 (51.7%) patients in the G-CSF alone group received plerixafor based on a peripheral blood CD34+ cell count of < 15/mm(3) (p = 0.045). The median count of CD34+ cells collected was significantly higher in the etoposide group (9.5 × 10(6)/kg vs. 7.9 × 10(6)/kg; p = 0.018), but the optimal collection rate (CD34+ cells ≥ 6 × 10(6)/kg) was not significantly different between the two groups (96.3% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.195). The rate of CD34+ cells collected of ≥ 8.0 × 10(6)/kg was significantly higher in the etoposide group (77.8% vs. 44.8%; p = 0.025). Although the rates of grade II–IV thrombocytopenia (63.0% vs. 31.0%; p = 0.031) and grade I–IV nausea (14.8% vs. 0%; p = 0.048) were significantly higher in the etoposide group, the rates of adverse events were low in both groups, with no neutropenic fever or septic shock. Thus, both single-dose etoposide plus G-CSF and G-CSF alone with risk-adapted plerixafor were effective and safe, but the former may be the better option for patients who are expected to receive two or more transplantations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10572075
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105720752023-10-14 Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001) Park, Sung-Soo Shin, Seung-Hwan Lee, Jung-Yeon Jeon, Young-Woo Yhang, Seung-Ah Min, Chang-Ki Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: We conducted a prospective trial comparing single-dose etoposide (375 mg/m(2) for one day) plus G-CSF versus G-CSF alone, followed by risk-adapted plerixafor in myeloma patients. Despite significantly less frequent (p = 0.045) use of plerixafor in the etoposide group, the optimal collection rates (CD34+ cells ≥ 6 × 10(6)/kg) were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.195). In addition, the rate of collected CD34+ cells of ≥ 8.0 × 10(6)/kg was significantly higher in the etoposide group. Our results suggest that single-dose etoposide plus G-CSF may be a better option for patients who are expected to receive two or more transplantations. ABSTRACT: To explore the optimal mobilization for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, we conducted a prospective trial comparing single-dose etoposide (375 mg/m(2) for one day) plus G-CSF versus G-CSF alone, followed by risk-adapted plerixafor. After randomization, 27 patients in the etoposide group and 29 patients in the G-CSF alone group received mobilizations. Six (22.2%) patients in the etoposide group and 15 (51.7%) patients in the G-CSF alone group received plerixafor based on a peripheral blood CD34+ cell count of < 15/mm(3) (p = 0.045). The median count of CD34+ cells collected was significantly higher in the etoposide group (9.5 × 10(6)/kg vs. 7.9 × 10(6)/kg; p = 0.018), but the optimal collection rate (CD34+ cells ≥ 6 × 10(6)/kg) was not significantly different between the two groups (96.3% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.195). The rate of CD34+ cells collected of ≥ 8.0 × 10(6)/kg was significantly higher in the etoposide group (77.8% vs. 44.8%; p = 0.025). Although the rates of grade II–IV thrombocytopenia (63.0% vs. 31.0%; p = 0.031) and grade I–IV nausea (14.8% vs. 0%; p = 0.048) were significantly higher in the etoposide group, the rates of adverse events were low in both groups, with no neutropenic fever or septic shock. Thus, both single-dose etoposide plus G-CSF and G-CSF alone with risk-adapted plerixafor were effective and safe, but the former may be the better option for patients who are expected to receive two or more transplantations. MDPI 2023-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10572075/ /pubmed/37835477 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15194783 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Park, Sung-Soo
Shin, Seung-Hwan
Lee, Jung-Yeon
Jeon, Young-Woo
Yhang, Seung-Ah
Min, Chang-Ki
Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001)
title Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001)
title_full Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001)
title_fullStr Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001)
title_full_unstemmed Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001)
title_short Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001)
title_sort prospective comparative study of etoposide plus g-csf versus g-csf alone, followed by risk-adapted plerixafor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: catholic research network for multiple myeloma study (caremm-2001)
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10572075/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37835477
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15194783
work_keys_str_mv AT parksungsoo prospectivecomparativestudyofetoposideplusgcsfversusgcsfalonefollowedbyriskadaptedplerixaforforperipheralbloodstemcellmobilizationinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyelomacatholicresearchnetworkformultiplemyelomastudycaremm2001
AT shinseunghwan prospectivecomparativestudyofetoposideplusgcsfversusgcsfalonefollowedbyriskadaptedplerixaforforperipheralbloodstemcellmobilizationinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyelomacatholicresearchnetworkformultiplemyelomastudycaremm2001
AT leejungyeon prospectivecomparativestudyofetoposideplusgcsfversusgcsfalonefollowedbyriskadaptedplerixaforforperipheralbloodstemcellmobilizationinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyelomacatholicresearchnetworkformultiplemyelomastudycaremm2001
AT jeonyoungwoo prospectivecomparativestudyofetoposideplusgcsfversusgcsfalonefollowedbyriskadaptedplerixaforforperipheralbloodstemcellmobilizationinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyelomacatholicresearchnetworkformultiplemyelomastudycaremm2001
AT yhangseungah prospectivecomparativestudyofetoposideplusgcsfversusgcsfalonefollowedbyriskadaptedplerixaforforperipheralbloodstemcellmobilizationinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyelomacatholicresearchnetworkformultiplemyelomastudycaremm2001
AT minchangki prospectivecomparativestudyofetoposideplusgcsfversusgcsfalonefollowedbyriskadaptedplerixaforforperipheralbloodstemcellmobilizationinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedmultiplemyelomacatholicresearchnetworkformultiplemyelomastudycaremm2001