These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: Optimizing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma: The Impact of Intensive Chemomobilization.
    Author: Portuguese AJ, Yeh AC, Banerjee R, Holmberg L, Wuliji N, Green DJ, Mielcarek M, Gopal AK, Gooley T, Stevenson P, Cowan AJ.
    Journal: Transplant Cell Ther; 2024 Aug; 30(8):774.e1-774.e12. PubMed ID: 38768908.
    Abstract:
    Most transplant-eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients undergo autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection (PBSC) using G-CSF with on-demand plerixafor (G ± P). Chemomobilization (CM) can be used as a salvage regimen after G ± P failure or for debulking residual tumor burden ahead of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Prior studies utilizing cyclophosphamide-based CM have not shown long-term benefits. At our center, intensive CM (ICM) using a PACE- or HyperCVAD-based regimen has been used to mitigate "excessive" residual disease based on plasma cell (PC) burden or MM-related biomarkers. Given the lack of efficacy of non-ICM, we sought to determine the impact of ICM on event-free survival (EFS), defined as death, progressive disease, or unplanned treatment escalation. We performed a retrospective study of newly diagnosed MM patients who collected autologous PBSCs with the intent to proceed immediately to ASCT at our center between 7/2020 and 2/2023. Patients were excluded if they underwent a tandem autologous or sequential autologous-allogeneic transplant, had primary PC leukemia, received non-ICM treatment (i.e., cyclophosphamide and/or etoposide), or had previously failed G ± P mobilization. To appropriately evaluate the impact of ICM among those who potentially could have received it, we utilized a propensity score matching (PSM) approach whereby ICM patients were compared to a cohort of non-CM patients matched on pre-ASCT factors most strongly associated with the receipt of ICM. Of 451 patients identified, 61 (13.5%) received ICM (PACE-based, n = 45; hyper-CVAD-based, n = 16). Post-ICM/pre-ASCT, 11 patients (18%) required admission for neutropenic fever and/or infection. Among 51 evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 31%; however, 46 of 55 evaluable patients (84%) saw a reduction in M-spike and/or involved free light chains. Among those evaluated with longitudinal peripheral blood flow cytometry (n = 8), 5 patients (63%) cleared circulating blood PCs post-ICM. Compared to patients mobilized with non-CM, ICM patients collected a slightly greater median number of CD34+ cells (10.8 versus 10.2 × 10⁶/kg, P = .018). The median follow-up was 30.6 months post-ASCT. In a PSM multivariable analysis, ICM was associated with significantly improved EFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.67, P = .003), but not improved OS (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.44, P = .2). ICM was associated with longer post-ASCT inpatient duration (+4.1 days, 95% CI, 2.4 to 5.8, P < .001), more febrile days (+0.96 days, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.4, P < .001), impaired platelet engraftment (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.87, P = .031), more bacteremia (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.20 to 9.31, P = .018), and increased antibiotic usage (cefepime: +2.3 doses, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.1, P = .018; vancomycin: +1.0 doses, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.8, P = .012). ICM was independently associated with improved EFS in a matched analysis involving MM patients with excessive disease burden at pre-ASCT workup. This benefit came at the cost of longer inpatient duration, more febrile days, greater incidence of bacteremia, and increased antibiotic usage in the immediate post-ASCT setting. Our findings suggest that ICM could be considered for a subset of MM patients, but its use must be weighed carefully against additional toxicity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]