International Journal of Hematology

, Volume 107, Issue 5, pp 559–567 | Cite as

Improved progression-free and event-free survival in myeloma patients undergoing PBSCH receiving a cyclophosphamide + G-CSF regimen than G-CSF alone

  • Akira Tanimura
  • Risen Hirai
  • Miki Nakamura
  • Masataka Takeshita
  • Shotaro Hagiwara
  • Akiyoshi Miwa
Original Article
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

Two regimens are commonly used for peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell harvesting (PBSCH) in multiple myeloma: high-dose cyclophosphamide (HD-CY) + granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), and G-CSF alone. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the anti-myeloma effect of the PBSCH regimen including HD-CY. We retrospectively assessed harvesting efficiency, complications, and anti-myeloma effects in 115 patients receiving HD-CY + G-CSF (HD-CY group) and 32 patients receiving G-CSF alone (G-alone group). We collected > 2 × 106 CD34-positive cells/kg from 93 and 75% of patients in the HD-CY and G-alone groups, respectively (P = 0.0079). The mean HSC count was also higher in the HD-CY group. No severe complications were observed in the G-alone group, whereas 66% of patients in the HD-CY group were treated with intravenous antibiotics. The median progression-free and event-free survival (PFS and EFS) were longer in the HD-CY group than in the G-alone group (28 vs. 18 months and 25 vs. 13 months, respectively; P = 0.0127 and 0.0139), with no difference in median overall survival. HD-CY showed anti-myeloma effect, as verified by prolonged EFS and PFS, when a vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone regimen was administered as induction before PBSCH.

Keywords

Multiple myeloma Mobilization Cyclophosphamide G-CSF 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM, Sotto JJ, Fuzibet JG, Rossi JF, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francais du Myelome. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(2):91–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moreau P, Attal M. All transplantation-eligible patients with myeloma should receive ASCT in first response. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2014;2014(1):250–4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gay F, Oliva S, Petrucci MT, Conticello C, Catalano L, Corradini P, et al. Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1617–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson KC, Alsina M, Atanackovic D, Biermann JS, Chandler JC, Costello C, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: multiple myeloma, version 3.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14(4):389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desikan KR, Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Vesole DH, Siegel D, Fassas A, et al. Comparable engraftment kinetics following peripheral-blood stem-cell infusion mobilized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with or without cyclophosphamide in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(4):1547–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gertz MA, Kumar SK, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, Hayman SR, Buadi FK, et al. Comparison of high-dose CY and growth factor with growth factor alone for mobilization of stem cells for transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43(8):619–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dingli D, Nowakowski GS, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman S, Litzow MR, et al. Cyclophosphamide mobilization does not improve outcome in patients receiving stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2006;6(5):384–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nakasone H, Kanda Y, Ueda T, Matsumoto K, Shimizu N, Minami J, et al. Retrospective comparison of mobilization methods for autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2009;84(12):809–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tuchman SA, Bacon WA, Huang LW, Long G, Rizzieri D, Horwitz M, et al. Cyclophosphamide-based hematopoietic stem cell mobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Clin Apher. 2015;30(3):176–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uy GL, Costa LJ, Hari PN, Zhang MJ, Huang JX, Anderson KC, et al. Contribution of chemotherapy mobilization to disease control in multiple myeloma treated with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(12):1513–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, Crowley JJ, Barlogie B, Blade J, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(15):3412–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Terpos E, Katodritou E, Roussou M, Pouli A, Michalis E, Delimpasi S, et al. High serum lactate dehydrogenase adds prognostic value to the international myeloma staging system even in the era of novel agents. Eur J Haematol. 2010;85(2):114–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, Lokhorst HM, Goldschmidt H, Rosinol L, et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(26):2863–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sonneveld P, Avet-Loiseau H, Lonial S, Usmani S, Siegel D, Anderson KC, et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood. 2016;127(24):2955–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(3):452–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Desikan KR, Mattox S, Vesole D, Siegel D, et al. Total therapy with tandem transplants for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 1999;93(1):55–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alegre A, Tomas JF, Martinez-Chamorro C, Gil-Fernandez JJ, Fernandez-Villalta MJ, Arranz R, et al. Comparison of peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma: high-dose cyclophosphamide plus GM-CSF vs G-CSF alone. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997;20(3):211–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DiPersio JF, Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A, Micallef IN, Stiff PJ, Kaufman JL, et al. Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;113(23):5720–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ri M, Matsue K, Sunami K, Shimazaki C, Hayashi A, Sunaga Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of plerixafor for the mobilization/collection of peripheral hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation in Japanese patients with multiple myeloma. Int J Hematol. 2017;106:562–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costa LJ, Miller AN, Alexander ET, Hogan KR, Shabbir M, Schaub C, et al. Growth factor and patient-adapted use of plerixafor is superior to CY and growth factor for autologous hematopoietic stem cells mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(4):523–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Afifi S, Adel NG, Devlin S, Duck E, Vanak J, Landau H, et al. Upfront plerixafor plus G-CSF versus cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF for stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: efficacy and cost analysis study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(4):546–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tricot G, Cottler-Fox MH, Calandra G. Safety and efficacy assessment of plerixafor in patients with multiple myeloma proven or predicted to be poor mobilizers, including assessment of tumor cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(1):63–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fitoussi O, Perreau V, Boiron JM, Bouzigon E, Cony-Makhoul P, Pigneux A, et al. A comparison of toxicity following two different doses of cyclophosphamide for mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in 116 multiple myeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;27(8):837–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hamadani M, Kochuparambil ST, Osman S, Cumpston A, Leadmon S, Bunner P, et al. Intermediate-dose versus low-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma treated with novel induction therapies. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(7):1128–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winkelmann N, Desole M, Hilgendorf I, Ernst T, Sayer HG, Kunert C, et al. Comparison of two dose levels of cyclophosphamide for successful stem cell mobilization in myeloma patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142(12):2603–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Buadi FK, Gastineau DA, et al. Impact of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell mobilization and engraftment post-peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Leukemia. 2007;21(9):2035–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mark T, Stern J, Furst JR, Jayabalan D, Zafar F, LaRow A, et al. Stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide overcomes the suppressive effect of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell collection in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(7):795–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Popat U, Saliba R, Thandi R, Hosing C, Qazilbash M, Anderlini P, et al. Impairment of filgrastim-induced stem cell mobilization after prior lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(6):718–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Attal M, Harousseau JL, Facon T, Guilhot F, Doyen C, Fuzibet JG, et al. Single versus double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(26):2495–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cavo M, Tosi P, Zamagni E, Cellini C, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, et al. Prospective, randomized study of single compared with double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Bologna 96 clinical study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(17):2434–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yhim HY, Kim K, Kim JS, Kang HJ, Kim JA, Min CK, et al. Matched-pair analysis to compare the outcomes of a second salvage auto-SCT to systemic chemotherapy alone in patients with multiple myeloma who relapsed after front-line auto-SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(3):425–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Giralt S, Garderet L, Durie B, Cook G, Gahrton G, Bruno B, et al. American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network, and International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Conference on salvage hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(12):2039–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mohty M, Richardson PG, McCarthy PL, Attal M. Consolidation and maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma after autologous transplantation: where do we stand? Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(8):1024–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jang JE, Cheong JW, Kim SJ, Cho H, Suh C, Lee H, et al. 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. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016;57(6):1389–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Hematology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HematologyTokyo-Kita Medical CenterTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Division of HematologyNational Center for Global Health and MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Division of HematologyTokyo Women’s Medical UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations