193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33404694)
1. Comparison of the efficiency, safety, and survival outcomes in two stem cell mobilization regimens with cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF or G-CSF alone in multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis.
Wang L; Xiang H; Yan Y; Deng Z; Li H; Li X; Liu J
Ann Hematol; 2021 Feb; 100(2):563-573. PubMed ID: 33404694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Factors influencing collection of peripheral blood stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma.
Demirer T; Buckner CD; Gooley T; Appelbaum FR; Rowley S; Chauncey T; Lilleby K; Storb R; Bensinger WI
Bone Marrow Transplant; 1996 Jun; 17(6):937-41. PubMed ID: 8807097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma.
Lin TL; Wang PN; Kuo MC; Hung YH; Chang H; Tang TC
J Clin Apher; 2016 Oct; 31(5):423-8. PubMed ID: 26340986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cyclophosphamide-based hematopoietic stem cell mobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Tuchman SA; Bacon WA; Huang LW; Long G; Rizzieri D; Horwitz M; Chute JP; Sullivan K; Morris Engemann A; Yopp A; Li Z; Corbet K; Chao N; Gasparetto C
J Clin Apher; 2015 Jun; 30(3):176-82. PubMed ID: 25293363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Randomized comparison of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor plus intensive chemotherapy for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma.
Arora M; Burns LJ; Barker JN; Miller JS; Defor TE; Olujohungbe AB; Weisdorf DJ
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant; 2004 Jun; 10(6):395-404. PubMed ID: 15148493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Comparison of Plerixafor or Cyclophosphamide Combined with G-CSF in Mobilization of Peripheral Blood Stem Cells in Multiple Myeloma].
Li WT; Ma LM; Lian Y; Wang QG; Gao ZJ; Zhao S
Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi; 2023 Oct; 31(5):1403-1409. PubMed ID: 37846691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Randomized cross-over trial of progenitor-cell mobilization: high-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor plus G-CSF.
Koç ON; Gerson SL; Cooper BW; Laughlin M; Meyerson H; Kutteh L; Fox RM; Szekely EM; Tainer N; Lazarus HM
J Clin Oncol; 2000 May; 18(9):1824-30. PubMed ID: 10784622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Prolonged infusion time of cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as a mobilization regimen may improve mobilization efficiency in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: a single center experience.
Li Y; Liu J; Huang B; Chen M; Gu J; Li J
Ann Med; 2023; 55(2):2289603. PubMed ID: 38104533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Autologous peripheral blood stem cells mobilization with etoposide plus rhG-CSF versus cyclophosphamide plus rhG-CSF].
Shi YK; He XH; Han XH; Liu P; Yang JL; Zhou SY; Zhou AP; Zhang CG; Ai B
Ai Zheng; 2003 Dec; 22(12):1311-6. PubMed ID: 14693058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of chemo-free strategy with G-CSF plus plerixafor on demand versus intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF as PBSC mobilization in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: An Italian explorative cost Analysis.
Laszlo D; Marcacci GP; Martino M; Radice D; Rabascio C; Lucchetti B; Magarò A; Caime A; Menna S; Lionetti MT; Bertolini F
Transfus Apher Sci; 2020 Oct; 59(5):102819. PubMed ID: 32499108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Selection of a mobilization regimen for multiple myeloma based on the response to induction therapy: granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone versus high-dose cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF.
Jang JE; Cheong JW; Kim SJ; Cho H; Suh C; Lee H; Eom HS; Yhim HY; Lee WS; Min CK; Lee JH; Park JS; Kim JS
Leuk Lymphoma; 2016; 57(6):1389-97. PubMed ID: 26428939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of two autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization strategies in patients with multiple myeloma: CE plus G-CSF versus G-CSF only: A single-center retrospective analysis.
Dill V; Blüm P; Lindemann A; Biederstädt A; Högner M; Götze KS; Bassermann F; Hildebrandt M
Transfusion; 2024 May; 64(5):871-880. PubMed ID: 38600674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Low-Dose Cyclophosphamide versus Intermediate-High-Dose Cyclophosphamide versus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Alone for Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Novel Agents: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.
Zannetti BA; Saraceni F; Cellini C; Fabbri E; Monaco F; Guarini A; Laszlo D; Martino M; Olivieri A; Imola M; Tosi P; Chiarucci M; Zuffa E; Lanza F
Transplant Cell Ther; 2021 Mar; 27(3):244.e1-244.e8. PubMed ID: 33781522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Blood graft cellular composition and posttransplant outcomes in myeloma patients mobilized with or without low-dose cyclophosphamide: a randomized comparison.
Valtola J; Silvennoinen R; Ropponen A; Siitonen T; Säily M; Sankelo M; Terävä V; Putkonen M; Kuittinen T; Pelkonen J; Mäntymaa P; Remes K; Varmavuo V; Jantunen E
Transfusion; 2016 Jun; 56(6):1394-401. PubMed ID: 27041692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The VAD chemotherapy regimen plus a G-CSF dose of 10 microg/kg is as effective and less toxic than high-dose cyclophosphamide plus a G-CSF dose of 5 microg/kg for progenitor cell mobilization: results from a monocentric study of 82 patients.
Lefrère F; Zohar S; Ghez D; Delarue R; Audat F; Suarez F; Hermine O; Damaj G; Maillard N; Ribeil JA; Azagury M; Misbahi R; Jondeau K; Cavazzana-Calvo M; Dal Cortivo L; Varet B
Bone Marrow Transplant; 2006 Apr; 37(8):725-9. PubMed ID: 16518433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Efficacy of biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor versus originator granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in de novo multiple myeloma patients.
Martino M; Recchia AG; Moscato T; Fedele R; Neri S; Gentile M; Alati C; Vincelli ID; Piro E; Penna G; Musolino C; Ronco F; Molica S; Morabito F
Cytotherapy; 2015 Oct; 17(10):1485-93. PubMed ID: 26188967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effect of gradual increment in rhG-CSF dose on stem cell yields in patients with multiple myeloma mobilized with intermediate dose cyclophosphamide plus rhG-CSF.
Hacıoğlu S; Sarı I; Doğu MH; Keskin A
Transfus Apher Sci; 2014 Feb; 50(1):71-4. PubMed ID: 24342458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cytarabine + G-CSF is more effective than cyclophosphamide + G-CSF as a stem cell mobilization regimen in multiple myeloma.
Jelinek T; Adamusova L; Popkova T; Tvrda I; Smejkalova J; Simicek M; Salounova D; Kascak M; Mihalyova J; Plonkova H; Duras J; Navratil M; Hajek R; Koristek Z
Bone Marrow Transplant; 2019 Jul; 54(7):1107-1114. PubMed ID: 30459429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells for autografting with low-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.
Bellido M; Sureda A; Martino R; Madoz P; García J; Brunet S
Haematologica; 1998 May; 83(5):428-31. PubMed ID: 9658727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparable engraftment kinetics following peripheral-blood stem-cell infusion mobilized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with or without cyclophosphamide in multiple myeloma.
Desikan KR; Barlogie B; Jagannath S; Vesole DH; Siegel D; Fassas A; Munshi N; Singhal S; Mehta J; Tindle S; Nelson J; Bracy D; Mattox S; Tricot G
J Clin Oncol; 1998 Apr; 16(4):1547-53. PubMed ID: 9552064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
