Efficacy of vinorelbine plus granulocyte colony-stimulation factor for CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma

Daratumumab during Myeloma Induction Therapy Is Associated with Impaired Stem Cell Mobilization and Prolonged Post-Transplant Hematologic Recovery

Daratumumab is being increasingly integrated into first-line multiple myeloma (MM) induction regimens, leading to improved response depth and longer progression-free survival. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is commonly performed as a consolidation strategy following first-line induction in fit MM patients. We investigated a cohort of 155 MM patients who received ASCT after first-line induction with or without daratumumab (RVd, n = 110; D-RVd, n = 45), analyzing differences in stem cell mobilization, apheresis, and engraftment. In the D-RVd group, fewer patients successfully completed mobilization at the planned apheresis date (44% vs. 71%, p = 0.0029), and more patients required the use of rescue plerixafor (38% vs. 28%, p = 0.3052). The median count of peripheral CD34+ cells at apheresis was lower (41.37 vs. 52.19 × 106/L, p = 0.0233), and the total number of collected CD34+ cells was inferior (8.27 vs. 10.22 × 106/kg BW, p = 0.0139). The time to recovery of neutrophils and platelets was prolonged (12 vs. 11 days, p = 0.0164; and 16 vs. 14 days, p = 0.0002, respectively), and a higher frequency of erythrocyte transfusions (74% vs. 51%, p = 0.0103) and a higher number of platelet concentrates/patients were required (4 vs. 2; p = 0.001). The use of daratumumab during MM induction might negatively impact stem cell mobilization and engraftment in the context of ASCT.

Effect of prior lenalidomide or daratumumab exposure on hematopoietic stem cell collection and reconstitution in multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

The roles of Lenalidomide (Len) and Daratumumab (Dara) in multiple myeloma treatment are well-established, yet their influences on hematopoietic stem cell harvesting and reconstitution remain disputed.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic database review to identify cohort studies or RCTs evaluating the effect of the use of Len or Dara on hematopoietic stem cell collection and peripheral blood count recovery in multiple myeloma patients. Effects on hematopoietic collection or reconstitution were estimated by comparing standardized mean differences (SMD) and mean differences (MD), or median differences.

RESULTS

Eighteen relevant studies were identified, summarizing mobilization results. For Len, data from 13 studies were summarized, including total CD34+ cell yield, collection failure rate, and time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment. Results indicated that Len exposure led to decreased stem cell collection [SMD=-0.23, 95% CI (-0.34, -0.12)]. However, collection failure (<2×106) could be mitigated by plerixafor [OR=2.14, 95% CI (0.96, 4.77)]. For Dara, two RCTs and three cohort studies were included, showing that Dara exposure resulted in a reduction in total stem cells even with optimized plerixafor mobilization [SMD=-0.75, 95% CI (-1.26, -0.23)], and delayed platelet engraftment recovery [MD=1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.66)].

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis offers a comprehensive view of Len and Dara's impacts on hematopoietic stem cell collection and reconstitution in multiple myeloma. Len usage could lead to reduced stem cell collection, counteracted by plerixafor mobilization. Dara usage could result in diminished stem cell collection and delayed platelet engraftment.

Mobilization Strategies in Myeloma Patients Intended for Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Background

Multiple myeloma is currently the leading indication for autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT). A prerequisite for AHCT is mobilization and collection of adequate blood graft to support high-dose therapy. Current mobilization strategies include granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone or in combination with chemotherapy most commonly cyclophosphamide (CY). More recently, plerixafor has become into agenda especially in patients who mobilize poorly. In the selection of a mobilization method, several factors should be considered.

Summary

Preplanned collection target is important as G-CSF plus plerixafor is more effective in the mobilization of CD34+ cells than G-CSF alone. On the other hand, CY plus G-CSF is superior to G-CSF only mobilization. Previous therapy and age of the patients are important considerations as G-CSF alone may not be effective enough in patients with risk factors for poor mobilization. These factors include extensive lenalidomide exposure, irradiation to bone marrow-bearing sites, higher age, or a previous mobilization failure. Also, local preferences and experiences as well as the number of apheresis needed are important issues as well as cost-effectiveness considerations. Mobilization method used may have implication for cellular composition of collected grafts, which might have an impact on posttransplant events such as hematologic and immune recovery in addition to also potential long-term outcomes.

Key Message

Currently, G-CSF alone and preemptive plerixafor if needed might be considered as a standard mobilization strategy in MM patients intended for AHCT.

Stem Cell Mobilization with Ixazomib and G-CSF in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

(1) Background: High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard consolidation strategy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) and for a subset of patients with relapsed/refractory disease. For stem cell mobilization, G-CSF alone or in combination with chemotherapy mobilizing agents and/or plerixafor are commonly used. Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor with less neurotoxic potential, which previously showed the ability to mobilize stem cells in preclinical studies. (2) Methods: Prospective single-center phase 1 study assessing the efficacy and safety of stem cell mobilization with ixazomib and G-CSF in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM undergoing HDCT and ASCT. Primary endpoint was percentage of patients achieving a yield of at least 6.0 × 10⁶/kg CD34+ cells within the first apheresis. G-CSF (filgrastim) 10 μg/kg/day was administered subcutaneously (s.c.) from day 1 to day 5 (planned apheresis) and ixazomib 4 mg orally at day 4. Plerixafor 24 mg s.c. was administered if the stem cell mobilization with ixazomib and G-CSF was not sufficient. (3) Results: 19 patients were treated within the study between 06/2020 and 02/2021. The primary endpoint was reached in 17 (89%) patients, with a median of 7.1 × 10⁶/kg CD34+ cells collected within the first apheresis, comparable to previously published results, and only 2 (11%) patients required a second apheresis. Median number of circulating CD34+ cells was 14.0 × 10⁶/L (2.0-95.2) before the administration of ixazomib, and 33.0 × 10⁶/L (4.2-177.0) pre-apheresis. However, 9 (47%) patients required the addition of plerixafor to ensure optimal stem cell collection. (4) Conclusions: The combination of ixazomib and G-CSF showed promising stem cell mobilizing activity in patients with MM prior to HDCT and ASCT. Future larger studies might further investigate the role of ixazomib in stem cell mobilization regimens for MM.

Intermediate-dose cytarabine plus G-CSF as mobilization regimen for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and heavily pre-treated patients with hematological and non-hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND

Intermediate-dose cytarabine plus G-CSF has recently emerged as safe and effective mobilization regimen for heavily pre-treated patients with lymphoid malignancies. We prospectively tested this regimen in patients referred to our center in order to collect enough stem cells for hematopoietic rescue in autologous transplantation (auto-HSCT).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

cytarabine (1.6 g/m²) plus G-CSF (outpatient administration) was performed in 81 consecutive patients who underwent auto-HSCT. For analyses purposes patients were divided into Group A, consisted of 48 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) and Group B with 33 heavily pre-treated patients (13 Hodgkin´s lymphoma, 7 non-Hodgkin´s lymphoma, 7 MM, 4 germ cell tumor, 2 non-promyelocytic acute myeloid leukemia).

RESULTS

In the Group A, circulating CD34+ cells/μL was significantly higher, 90% started stem cell harvest on day 14, 98% collected ≥5.0 × 10⁶ CD34+cells/kg and a single apheresis was sufficient in 92% of the cases. In the Group B, 85% started leukapheresis on day 14, 88% collected ≥2.0 × 10⁶ CD34+cells/kg which was achieved with a single apheresis in 82% of the cases; a higher proportion of the patients (63.6% versus 33.3%) required platelet transfusions. Both groups exhibited few adverse events and the time to neutrophil and platelet recovery was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Intermediate-dose cytarabine plus G-CSF mobilization is effective even for heavily pre-treated patients. The outpatient administration of G-CSF, the reliable prediction of the day to begin harvesting, the optimal CD34+ cell yield obtained with a single apheresis and the fewer occurrences of adverse events denoted the benefits of this regimen.

Vinorelbine-Cyclophosphamide compared to cyclophosphamide in peripheral blood stem cell mobilization for multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

High dose Cyclophosphamide (Cy) and Vinorelbine Cyclophosphamide (Vino-Cy) are stem cell (SC) mobilisation options for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We present a comparison of mobilisation outcomes using these regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Vino-Cy patients received Vinorelbine 25 mg/m² on day 1, cyclophosphamide 1500 mg/m² on day 2, and pegylated GCSF on day 4 or GCSF 10 mcg/kg/day from day 4 onwards. Cy patients were given cyclophosphamide 4000 mg/m² on day 1 and GCSF10 mcg/kg/day from day 5 onwards. The target CD34 + SC collection was 5 × 10⁶ per kg/BW.

RESULTS

149 patients were included. SC collection was lower in the Vino-Cy group (8.20 × 10⁶/Kg BW) compared to the Cy group (11.43 × 10⁶/Kg BW), with adjusted geometric mean ratio of 0.59 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.86, p = 0.006). Time taken to achieve an adequate PB SC count was shorter for Vino-Cy (9 ± 1 day compared to 12 ± 2 days for Cy, adjusted absolute mean difference -3.95, 95% CI -4.85 to -3.06, P < .001). Mobilisation related toxicities (in particular, neutropaenic fever) were greater for Cy.

CONCLUSION

Vino-Cy is a potential alternative to Cy given the need for effective mobilisation protocols with acceptable toxicity.

Mobilization of Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells with Standard- or Reduced-Dose Filgrastim after Vinorelbine in Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Randomized Prospective Single-Center Phase II Study

Vinorelbine combined with filgrastim at a dose of 10 µg/kg of body weight (BW) per day is a reliable and well-tolerated regimen for mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) in patients with multiple myeloma. This prospective, randomized, phase II study was initiated to assess the feasibility of a reduced filgrastim dosage. Vinorelbine was combined with either standard-dose filgrastim (10 µg/kg BW per day) or reduced-dose filgrastim (5 µg/kg BW per day). Leukapheresis sessions were planned to start at day 8 and were continued until the predefined target amount of 4 × 10⁶ HPCs/kg BW was collected. The study demonstrated the feasibility of vinorelbine combined with reduced daily filgrastim with a mean of 1.29 leukapheresis sessions necessary per patient (95% confidence interval, .95 to 1.7). All patients could start leukapheresis as planned at day 8, and the collection success rate was 100% for the whole patient collective after a maximum of 2 leukapheresis sessions. No statistically significant differences with regard to the amount of HPCs collected between the 2 groups were observed (P = .99). Accordingly, no differences were seen with regard to length of hospitalization for autotransplant (P = .34) and duration of neutrophil (P = .93) and platelet engraftment (P = .42). Patients receiving reduced-dose filgrastim reported significantly lower peak pain values in a numeric analogue scale (P = .01), and the costs were significantly lower than in patients undergoing standard-dose chemomobilization (P = .001). Vinorelbine 35 mg/m² plus filgrastim 5 µg/kg BW once per day until completion of HPC collection is feasible and appears to be advantageous with respect to the severity of pain intensity and treatment costs.

Transplantation of autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells in the subarachnoid space for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a safety analysis of 14 patients

There is a small amount of clinical data regarding the safety and feasibility of autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cell transplantation into the subarachnoid space for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The objectives of this retrospective study were to assess the safety and efficacy of peripheral blood mononuclear cell transplantation in 14 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients to provide more objective data for future clinical trials. After stem cell mobilization and collection, autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells (1 × 10⁹) were isolated and directly transplanted into the subarachnoid space of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients. The primary outcome measure was incidence of adverse events. Secondary outcome measures were electromyography 1 week before operation and 4 weeks after operation, Functional Independence Measurement, Berg Balance Scale, and Dysarthria Assessment Scale 1 week preoperatively and 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. There was no immediate or delayed transplant-related cytotoxicity. The number of leukocytes, serum alanine aminotransferase and creatinine levels, and body temperature were within the normal ranges. Radiographic evaluation showed no serious transplant-related adverse events. Muscle strength grade, results of Functional Independence Measurement, Berg Balance Scale, and Dysarthria Assessment Scale were not significantly different before and after treatment. These findings suggest that peripheral blood mononuclear cell transplantation into the subarachnoid space for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is safe, but its therapeutic effect is not remarkable. Thus, a large-sample investigation is needed to assess its efficacy further.

Mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells for autologous transportation: consensus recommendations

Selected patients with certain hematological malignancies and solid tumors have the potential to achieve long-term survival with autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant. The collection of these cells in peripheral blood avoids multiple bone marrow aspirations, results in faster engraftment and allows treatment of patients with infection, fibrosis, or bone marrow hypocellularity. However, for the procedure to be successful, it is essential to mobilize a sufficient number of progenitor cells from the bone marrow into the blood circulation. Therefore, a group of Brazilian experts met in order to develop recommendations for mobilization strategies adapted to the reality of the Brazilian national health system, which could help minimize the risk of failure, reduce toxicity and improve the allocation of financial resources.

Successful hematopoietic stem cell mobilization with vinorelbine and filgrastim in germ cell tumor

Germ cell tumor (GCT) is the most frequent cancer in young men and is highly curable. Almost 80 % of patients with the disease in an advanced stage achieve a reliable response to cisplatin combination chemotherapy. For relapsing or refractory disease, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an effective therapy. The two most used mobilization strategies for HSC collection are filgrastim alone or filgrastim after chemotherapy (chemomobilization). HSC collection with filgrastim mobilization can be difficult, especially in highly treated patients. While the addition of chemotherapy improves mobilization and reduces the number of apheresis sessions, it can increase morbidity rate as well. We describe a case of a 45-year-old male with classical seminoma who was submitted to orchiectomy. Two months after, he presented progression of the tumor. He received four cycles of cisplatin, etoposide and bleomycin, with residual retroperitoneal mass and cervical lymphadenopathy. Further, he was submitted to three more cycles of cisplatin, ifosfamide and paclitaxel. Thereupon, he showed partial response. At that moment, autologous HSC transplantation was considered. In the first mobilization, filgrastim alone was used without success in harvesting. The second mobilization consisted of vinorelbine at day 1 (35 mg/m²) and filgrastim (16 µg/kg) started at day 5. The peak of CD34+ cells in peripheral blood was 32.6 × 10⁶ cells/L on day 8, with 4.73 × 10⁶ cells/kg CD34+ collected on days 8 and 9. The benefits of this scheme include: (a) outpatient administration, (b) fewer doses of filgrastim, (c) minimal risk of febrile neutropenia and (d) reliable prediction of collection day. For these reasons, we conclude that vinorelbine chemomobilization is a great option for GCT, particularly in patients with high risk of mobilization failure. Furthermore, it requires less resource usage, hospitalizations and transfusions than conventional chemomobilization.