Medical College of Wisconsin
CTSICores SearchResearch InformaticsREDCap

Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Mobilization with Ifosfamide, Carboplatin, and Etoposide Chemotherapy versus Plerixafor-Based Strategies in Patients with Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2016 10;22(10):1773-1780 PMID: 27345140

Pubmed ID

27345140

Abstract

Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of chemo-mobilization with ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE) ± rituximab with plerixafor-based approaches in lymphoma patients have not been performed. We analyzed hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization outcomes in lymphoma patients undergoing chemo-mobilization with ICE (n = 35) compared with either routine plerixafor (n = 30) or "just in time" (JIT) plerixafor-based mobilization (n = 33). Chemo-mobilization provided a significantly higher total CD34(+) cell yield (median collection, 5.35 × 10(6) cells/kg for ICE versus 3.15 × 10(6) cells/kg for routine plerixafor and 3.6 × 10(6) cells/kg for JIT plerixafor, P < .001). The median day 1 yield of CD34(+) cells was not significantly different (median, 2.2 × 10(6) cells/kg in ICE versus 1.9 × 10(6) cells/kg in upfront plerixafor versus 1.7 × 10(6) cells/kg in JIT plerixafor, P = .20). There was no significant difference in the 3 groups in terms of total number of apheresis sessions performed (median, 2 in each group; P = .78). There were no mobilization failures (inability to collect at least 2 × 10(6) cells/kg) in the chemo-mobilization group, whereas 5 patients (16.7%) in the routine plerixafor and 3 patients (9.1%) in JIT group had mobilization failure (P = .04). Mean time to neutrophil engraftment was faster in the chemo-mobilization group, 10.3 days (±1.2) compared with 12.1 days (±3.6) in the routine plerixafor group and 11.6 days (±3.0) in the JIT group (P < .001) and mean time to platelet engraftment was 13.7 days (±.7) in ICE versus 20.3 days (±1.6) in routine plerixafor versus 17.1 days (± .9) in JIT group (P < .001). Red blood cell transfusions were significantly higher in the chemo-mobilization group (34.3% versus 0 versus 3.2% versus 1, P < .001) and so were the platelet transfusions (22.9% versus 0 versus 0, P < .001). Excluding the cost of chemotherapy administration, chemo-mobilization was associated with significantly less mobilization cost (average cost $17,601.76 in ICE versus $28,963.05 in routine and $25,679.81 in JIT, P < .001). Our data suggests that chemo-mobilization with ICE provides a higher total CD34(+) cell yield, lower rates of mobilization failure, faster engraftment, and lower cost compared to plerixafor-based approaches with comparable toxicity profile between the groups, except for higher transfusion requirements with chemo-mobilization.

Author List

Dhakal B, Veltri LW, Fenske TS, Eastwood D, Craig MD, Cumpston A, Shillingburg A, Esselman J, Watkins K, Pasquini MC, D'Souza A, Hari P, Kanate AS, Hamadani M

Authors

Anita D'Souza MD Assistant Professor in the Medicine department at Medical College of Wisconsin
Binod Dhakal MD Assistant Professor in the Medicine department at Medical College of Wisconsin
Timothy Fenske MD Professor in the Medicine department at Medical College of Wisconsin
Mehdi H. Hamadani MD Professor in the Medicine department at Medical College of Wisconsin
Parameswaran Hari MD Chief, Professor in the Medicine department at Medical College of Wisconsin
Marcelo C. Pasquini MD, MS Associate Professor in the Medicine department at Medical College of Wisconsin




Scopus

2-s2.0-84992043960   2 Citations

MESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold

Adult
Aged
Antigens, CD34
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
Blood Transfusion
Carboplatin
Etoposide
Female
Graft Survival
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Heterocyclic Compounds
Hodgkin Disease
Humans
Ifosfamide
Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin
Male
Middle Aged
Young Adult
jenkins-FCD Prod-296 4db9d02597e0a2e889e230f853b641c12f1c3ee3