PreprintArticleVersion 1Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed
Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Catholic Research Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CARE-MM 2001)
Park, S.-S.; Shin, S.-H.; Lee, J.-Y.; Jeon, Y.-W.; Yhang, S.-A.; Min, C.-K. Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001). Cancers2023, 15, 4783.
Park, S.-S.; Shin, S.-H.; Lee, J.-Y.; Jeon, Y.-W.; Yhang, S.-A.; Min, C.-K. Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001). Cancers 2023, 15, 4783.
Park, S.-S.; Shin, S.-H.; Lee, J.-Y.; Jeon, Y.-W.; Yhang, S.-A.; Min, C.-K. Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001). Cancers2023, 15, 4783.
Park, S.-S.; Shin, S.-H.; Lee, J.-Y.; Jeon, Y.-W.; Yhang, S.-A.; Min, C.-K. Prospective Comparative Study of Etoposide plus G-CSF versus G-CSF Alone, Followed by Risk-Adapted Plerixafor for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: CAtholic REsearch Network for Multiple Myeloma Study (CAREMM-2001). Cancers 2023, 15, 4783.
Abstract
To explore more effective and safer mobilization strategies for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, we conducted a prospective trial comparing single-dose etoposide (375 mg/m2 for one day) plus G-CSF versus G-CSF alone followed by risk-adapted plerixafor. After randomization, 27 patients in the etoposide group and 29 patients in the G-CSF alone group received mobilization regimens. Six (22.2%) patients in the etoposide group and 15 (51.7%) patients in the G-CSF alone group received a risk-adapted plerixafor based on a peripheral blood CD34+ cell count of less than 15/mm3 (P = 0.045). The median total count of CD34+ stem cells collected was significantly higher in the etoposide group (9.5 × 106/kg vs. 7.9 × 106/kg; P = 0.018), but the optimal collection (CD34+ cell count ≥ 6 × 106/kg) rates were not significantly different between the etoposide group and the G-CSF alone groups (96.3% vs. 82.8%; P = 0.195). The rate of collected CD34+ stem cells of 8.0 × 106/kg or grater was significantly higher in the etoposide group (77.8% vs 44.8%; P = 0.025). Meanwhile, the rates of adverse events of were relatively low, with no neutropenic fever or septic shock observed in either group. After transplantation, the median days to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were not significantly different between the two groups (P =1.000 in both). Thus, both single-dose etoposide plus G-CSF and G-CSF alone with risk-adapted plerixafor were effective and safe, but the former may be the better option for patients who are expected to receive two or more transplantations.
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
