Analysis of data collected in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Registry on a cohort of lymphoma patients receiving plerixafor
Language English Country England, Great Britain Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
31570781
PubMed Central
PMC7051902
DOI
10.1038/s41409-019-0693-z
PII: 10.1038/s41409-019-0693-z
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Benzylamines MeSH
- Cyclams MeSH
- Heterocyclic Compounds * MeSH
- Bone Marrow MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Neoplasm Recurrence, Local MeSH
- Lymphoma * therapy MeSH
- Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization MeSH
- Registries MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Geographicals
- Europe MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Benzylamines MeSH
- Cyclams MeSH
- Heterocyclic Compounds * MeSH
- plerixafor MeSH Browser
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.
Charles University Hospital Prague Czech Republic
EBMT Data Office Leiden Netherlands
EBMT Statistical Unit Paris France
George Papanicolaou General Hospital Thessaloniki Greece
Hospital de la Santa Creu Sant Pau Barcelona Spain
Institut Català d'Oncologia Hospital Duran i Reynals Barcelona Spain
Institut Paoli Calmettes Marseille France
Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden
Maria Sklodowska Curie Institute Oncology Center Warsaw Poland
Nottingham University Hospital Nottingham UK
Sanofi Genzyme Cambridge MA USA
Semmelweis University Budapest Hungary
St Bartholomew's Hospital Barts Health NHS Trust London UK
University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic
University of Cologne Cologne Germany
University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital Kuopio Finland
See more in PubMed
Kim MG, Han N, Lee EK, Kim T. Pegfilgrastim vs filgrastim in PBSC mobilization for autologous hematopoietic SCT: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2015;50:523–30. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.297. PubMed DOI
Tse WT, Egalka MC. Stem cell plasticity and blood and marrow transplantation: a clinical strategy. J Cell Biochem Suppl. 2002;38:96–103. doi: 10.1002/jcb.10038. PubMed DOI
Mohty M, Hubel K, Kroger N, Aljurf M, Apperley J, Basak GW, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell mobilisation in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients: a position statement from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2014;49:865–72. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.39. PubMed DOI
Giralt S, Costa L, Schriber J, Dipersio J, Maziarz R, McCarty J, et al. Optimizing autologous stem cell mobilization strategies to improve patient outcomes: consensus guidelines and recommendations. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2014;20:295–308. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.10.013. PubMed DOI
Fricker SP, Anastassov V, Cox J, Darkes MC, Grujic O, Idzan SR, et al. Characterization of the molecular pharmacology of AMD3100: a specific antagonist of the G-protein coupled chemokine receptor, CXCR4. Biochem Pharm. 2006;72:588–96. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2006.05.010. PubMed DOI
Hatse S, Princen K, Bridger G, De Clercq E, Schols D. Chemokine receptor inhibition by AMD3100 is strictly confined to CXCR4. FEBS Lett. 2002;527:255–62. doi: 10.1016/S0014-5793(02)03143-5. PubMed DOI
Fruehauf S, Seeger T. New strategies for mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells. Future Oncol. 2005;1:375–83. doi: 10.1517/14796694.1.3.375. PubMed DOI
Lapidot T, Dar A, Kollet O. How do stem cells find their way home? Blood. 2005;106:1901–10. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-04-1417. PubMed DOI
DiPersio JF, Uy GL, Yasothan U, Kirkpatrick P. Plerixafor. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:105–6. doi: 10.1038/nrd2819. PubMed DOI
Nervi B, Link DC, DiPersio JF. Cytokines and hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. J Cell Biochem. 2006;99:690–705. doi: 10.1002/jcb.21043. PubMed DOI
Olivieri A, Marchetti M, Lemoli R, Tarella C, Iacone A, Lanza F, et al. Proposed definition of ‘poor mobilizer’ in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: an analytic hierarchy process by ad hoc working group Gruppo ItalianoTrapianto di Midollo Osseo. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2012;47:342–51. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2011.82. PubMed DOI PMC
Pirracchio R, Resche-Rigon M, Chevret S. Evaluation of the propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios in case of small sample size. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:70. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-70. PubMed DOI PMC
Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observation. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452. DOI
Gordan LN, Sugrue MW, Lynch JW, Williams KD, Khan SA, Wingard JR, et al. Poor mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells is a risk factor for worse outcome in lymphoma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Leuk Lymphoma. 2003;44:815–20. doi: 10.1080/1042819031000067585. PubMed DOI
Pavone V, Gaudio F, Console G, Vitolo U, Iacopino P, Guarini A, et al. Poor mobilization is an independent prognostic factor in patients with malignant lymphomas treated by peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2006;37:719–24. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705298. PubMed DOI
Varmavuo V, Rimpilainen J, Kuitunen H, Nihtinen A, Vasala K, Mikkola M, et al. Engraftment and outcome after autologous stem cell transplantation in plerixafor-mobilized non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients. Transfusion. 2014;54:1243–50. doi: 10.1111/trf.12434. PubMed DOI
Micallef IN, Stiff PJ, Nademanee A, Maziarz RT, Horwitz M, Stadtmauer EA, et al. Plerixafor plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up report. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2018;24:1187–95. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.01.039. PubMed DOI PMC
Brooks JM, Ohsfeldt RL. Squeezing the balloon: propensity scores and unmeasured covariate balance. Health Serv Res. 2013;48:1487–507. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12020. PubMed DOI PMC
Garrido MM, Kelley AS, Paris J, Roza K, Meier DE, Morrison RS, et al. Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores. Health Serv Res. 2014;49:1701–20. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12182. PubMed DOI PMC
Veltri L, Cumpston A, Shillingburg A, Wen S, Luo J, Leadmon S, et al. Hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with “just-in-time” plerixafor approach is a cost-effective alternative to routine plerixafor use. Cytotherapy. 2015;17:1785–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2015.09.002. PubMed DOI PMC
ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT01362972
