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

Results from a multicenter, noninterventional registry study for multiple myeloma patients who received stem cell mobilization regimens with and without plerixafor

C. Morris, C. Chabannon, T. Masszi, N. Russell, H. Nahi, G. Kobbe, M. Krejci, HW. Auner, D. Pohlreich, P. Hayden, GW. Basak, S. Lenhoff, N. Schaap, A. van Biezen, C. Knol, S. Iacobelli, Q. Liu, M. Celanovic, L. Garderet, N. Kröger

. 2020 ; 55 (2) : 356-366. [pub] 20190918

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/bmc21020759
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 31534192
DOI 10.1038/s41409-019-0676-0
Knihovny.cz E-resources

Plerixafor plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) enhances the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) for collection and subsequent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). This international, multicenter, noninterventional registry study (NCT01362972), evaluated long-term outcomes for MM patients who received plerixafor versus other mobilization regimens. The comparisons were: G-CSF + plerixafor (G-CSF + P) versus G-CSF-; G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G-CSF + C); and G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C. Propensity score matching was used to balance groups. Primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) after transplantation. After propensity matching, 77 versus 41 patients in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF cohorts, 129 versus 129 in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + C cohorts, and 117 versus 117 in the G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C cohorts were matched, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in a smaller sample size and imbalances were not completely overcome. For both PFS and OS, the upper limits of the hazard ratio 95% confidence intervals exceeded prespecified boundaries; noninferiority was not demonstrated. CIR rates were higher in the plerixafor cohorts. G-CSF + P remains an option for the mobilization of HSCs in poor mobilizers with MM with no substantial differences in PFS, OS, and CIR in comparison with other regimens.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21020759
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210830102413.0
007      
ta
008      
210728s2020 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1038/s41409-019-0676-0 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)31534192
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Morris, Curly $u Queens University, Belfast, UK. curlymorris_cliff@yahoo.com
245    10
$a Results from a multicenter, noninterventional registry study for multiple myeloma patients who received stem cell mobilization regimens with and without plerixafor / $c C. Morris, C. Chabannon, T. Masszi, N. Russell, H. Nahi, G. Kobbe, M. Krejci, HW. Auner, D. Pohlreich, P. Hayden, GW. Basak, S. Lenhoff, N. Schaap, A. van Biezen, C. Knol, S. Iacobelli, Q. Liu, M. Celanovic, L. Garderet, N. Kröger
520    9_
$a Plerixafor plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) enhances the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) for collection and subsequent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). This international, multicenter, noninterventional registry study (NCT01362972), evaluated long-term outcomes for MM patients who received plerixafor versus other mobilization regimens. The comparisons were: G-CSF + plerixafor (G-CSF + P) versus G-CSF-; G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G-CSF + C); and G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C. Propensity score matching was used to balance groups. Primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) after transplantation. After propensity matching, 77 versus 41 patients in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF cohorts, 129 versus 129 in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + C cohorts, and 117 versus 117 in the G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C cohorts were matched, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in a smaller sample size and imbalances were not completely overcome. For both PFS and OS, the upper limits of the hazard ratio 95% confidence intervals exceeded prespecified boundaries; noninferiority was not demonstrated. CIR rates were higher in the plerixafor cohorts. G-CSF + P remains an option for the mobilization of HSCs in poor mobilizers with MM with no substantial differences in PFS, OS, and CIR in comparison with other regimens.
650    _2
$a benzylaminy $7 D001596
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 mnohočetný myelom $x terapie $7 D009101
650    _2
$a lokální recidiva nádoru $7 D009364
650    _2
$a registrace $7 D012042
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, Tamas $u Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
700    1_
$a Russell, Nigel $u Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK
700    1_
$a Nahi, Hareth $u Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Kobbe, Guido $u University Hospital of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
700    1_
$a Krejci, Marta $u Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Auner, Holger W $u Imperial College London, London, UK
700    1_
$a Pohlreich, David $u Charles University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hayden, Patrick $u St. James Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
700    1_
$a Basak, Grzegorz W $u Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
700    1_
$a Lenhoff, Stig $u Skanes University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
700    1_
$a Schaap, Nicolaas $u Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a van Biezen, Anja $u European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Leiden, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a Knol, Cora $u European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Leiden, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a Iacobelli, Simona $u University Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Liu, Qianying $u Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA
700    1_
$a Celanovic, Marina $u Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA
700    1_
$a Garderet, Laurent $u Hospital Saint Antoine, Paris, France
700    1_
$a Kröger, Nicolaus $u University Hospital, Hamburg, Germany
773    0_
$w MED00000834 $t Bone marrow transplantation $x 1476-5365 $g Roč. 55, č. 2 (2020), s. 356-366
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31534192 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20210728 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210830102413 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1691352 $s 1141205
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 55 $c 2 $d 356-366 $e 20190918 $i 1476-5365 $m Bone marrow transplantation $n Bone Marrow Transplant $x MED00000834
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210728

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options