Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Analysis of data collected in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Registry on a cohort of lymphoma patients receiving plerixafor

A. Sureda, C. Chabannon, T. Masszi, D. Pohlreich, C. Scheid, C. Thieblemont, BE. Wahlin, I. Sakellari, N. Russell, A. Janikova, A. Dabrowska-Iwanicka, C. Touzeau, A. Esquirol, E. Jantunen, S. van der Werf, P. Bosman, A. Boumendil, Q. Liu, M....

. 2020 ; 55 (3) : 613-622. [pub] 20190930

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21020700
E-resources Online Full text

NLK Free Medical Journals from 1997 to 1 year ago
Freely Accessible Science Journals from 1997 to 1 year ago
ProQuest Central from 2000-01-01 to 1 year ago
Open Access Digital Library from 1997-01-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 2000-01-01 to 1 year ago

Links

PubMed 31570781
DOI 10.1038/s41409-019-0693-z
Knihovny.cz E-resources

Plerixafor + granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is administered to patients with lymphoma who are poor mobilizers of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in Europe. This international, multicenter, non-interventional registry study (NCT01362972) evaluated long-term follow-up of patients with lymphoma who received plerixafor for HSC mobilization versus other mobilization methods. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between comparison groups. The following mobilization regimens were compared: G-CSF + plerixafor (G + P) versus G-CSF alone; G + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G + C); and G-CSF + plerixafor + chemotherapy (G + P + C) versus G + C. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR). Overall, 313/3749 (8.3%) eligible patients were mobilized with plerixafor-containing regimens. After propensity score matching, 70 versus 36 patients were matched in the G + P versus G-CSF alone cohort, 124 versus 124 in the G + P versus G + C cohort, and 130 versus 130 in the G + P + C versus G + C cohort. For both PFS and OS, the upper bound of confidence interval for the hazard ratio was >1.3 for all comparisons, implying that non-inferiority was not demonstrated. No major differences in PFS, OS, and CIR were observed between the plerixafor and comparison groups.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21020700
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210830102324.0
007      
ta
008      
210728s2020 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1038/s41409-019-0693-z $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)31570781
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Sureda, Anna $u Institut Català d'Oncologia, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Barcelona, Spain. asureda@iconcologia.net
245    10
$a Analysis of data collected in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Registry on a cohort of lymphoma patients receiving plerixafor / $c A. Sureda, C. Chabannon, T. Masszi, D. Pohlreich, C. Scheid, C. Thieblemont, BE. Wahlin, I. Sakellari, N. Russell, A. Janikova, A. Dabrowska-Iwanicka, C. Touzeau, A. Esquirol, E. Jantunen, S. van der Werf, P. Bosman, A. Boumendil, Q. Liu, M. Celanovic, S. Montoto, P. Dreger
520    9_
$a Plerixafor + granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is administered to patients with lymphoma who are poor mobilizers of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in Europe. This international, multicenter, non-interventional registry study (NCT01362972) evaluated long-term follow-up of patients with lymphoma who received plerixafor for HSC mobilization versus other mobilization methods. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between comparison groups. The following mobilization regimens were compared: G-CSF + plerixafor (G + P) versus G-CSF alone; G + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G + C); and G-CSF + plerixafor + chemotherapy (G + P + C) versus G + C. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR). Overall, 313/3749 (8.3%) eligible patients were mobilized with plerixafor-containing regimens. After propensity score matching, 70 versus 36 patients were matched in the G + P versus G-CSF alone cohort, 124 versus 124 in the G + P versus G + C cohort, and 130 versus 130 in the G + P + C versus G + C cohort. For both PFS and OS, the upper bound of confidence interval for the hazard ratio was >1.3 for all comparisons, implying that non-inferiority was not demonstrated. No major differences in PFS, OS, and CIR were observed between the plerixafor and comparison groups.
650    _2
$a benzylaminy $7 D001596
650    _2
$a kostní dřeň $7 D001853
650    _2
$a cyklamy $7 D000080027
650    _2
$a mobilizace hematopoetických kmenových buněk $7 D019650
650    12
$a heterocyklické sloučeniny $7 D006571
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a lymfom $x terapie $7 D008223
650    _2
$a lokální recidiva nádoru $7 D009364
650    _2
$a registrace $7 D012042
651    _2
$a Evropa $7 D005060
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Chabannon, Christian $u Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France
700    1_
$a Masszi, Tamás $u Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
700    1_
$a Pohlreich, David $u Charles University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Scheid, Christof $u University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
700    1_
$a Thieblemont, Catherine $u APHP, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Service d'hémato-oncologie, Université Paris Diderot - and Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
700    1_
$a Wahlin, Björn E $u Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Sakellari, Ioanna $u George Papanicolaou General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece
700    1_
$a Russell, Nigel $u Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, UK
700    1_
$a Janikova, Andrea $u University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Dabrowska-Iwanicka, Anna $u Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland
700    1_
$a Touzeau, Cyrille $u CHU Nantes, Nantes, France
700    1_
$a Esquirol, Albert $u Hospital de la Santa Creu Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
700    1_
$a Jantunen, Esa $u University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
700    1_
$a van der Werf, Steffie $u EBMT Data Office, Leiden, Netherlands
700    1_
$a Bosman, Paul $u EBMT Data Office, Leiden, Netherlands
700    1_
$a Boumendil, Ariane $u EBMT Statistical Unit, Paris, France
700    1_
$a Liu, Qianying $u Sanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA
700    1_
$a Celanovic, Marina $u Sanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA
700    1_
$a Montoto, Silvia $u St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
700    1_
$a Dreger, Peter $u University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
773    0_
$w MED00000834 $t Bone marrow transplantation $x 1476-5365 $g Roč. 55, č. 3 (2020), s. 613-622
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31570781 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20210728 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210830102325 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1691305 $s 1141146
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 55 $c 3 $d 613-622 $e 20190930 $i 1476-5365 $m Bone marrow transplantation $n Bone Marrow Transplant $x MED00000834
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210728

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options