Searching the Resource Information Network

Our searching services are busy right now. Please try again later

  • Register
X
Forgot Password

If you have forgotten your password you can enter your email here and get a temporary password sent to your email.

X

Leaving Community

Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.

No
Yes

Results from a multicenter, noninterventional registry study for multiple myeloma patients who received stem cell mobilization regimens with and without plerixafor.

Curly Morris | Christian Chabannon | Tamas Masszi | Nigel Russell | Hareth Nahi | Guido Kobbe | Marta Krejci | Holger W Auner | David Pohlreich | Patrick Hayden | Grzegorz W Basak | Stig Lenhoff | Nicolaas Schaap | Anja van Biezen | Cora Knol | Simona Iacobelli | Qianying Liu | Marina Celanovic | Laurent Garderet | Nicolaus Kröger
Bone marrow transplantation | 2020

Plerixafor plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) enhances the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) for collection and subsequent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). This international, multicenter, noninterventional registry study (NCT01362972), evaluated long-term outcomes for MM patients who received plerixafor versus other mobilization regimens. The comparisons were: G-CSF + plerixafor (G-CSF + P) versus G-CSF-; G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G-CSF + C); and G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C. Propensity score matching was used to balance groups. Primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) after transplantation. After propensity matching, 77 versus 41 patients in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF cohorts, 129 versus 129 in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + C cohorts, and 117 versus 117 in the G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C cohorts were matched, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in a smaller sample size and imbalances were not completely overcome. For both PFS and OS, the upper limits of the hazard ratio 95% confidence intervals exceeded prespecified boundaries; noninferiority was not demonstrated. CIR rates were higher in the plerixafor cohorts. G-CSF + P remains an option for the mobilization of HSCs in poor mobilizers with MM with no substantial differences in PFS, OS, and CIR in comparison with other regimens.

Pubmed ID: 31534192

Research resources used in this publication

None found

Additional research tools detected in this publication

Antibodies used in this publication

None found

Associated grants

None

Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.

This is a list of tools and resources that we have found mentioned in this publication.


ClinicalTrials.gov (tool)

RRID:SCR_002309

Registry and results database of federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in United States and around world. Provides information about purpose of trial, who may participate, locations, and phone numbers for more details. This information should be used in conjunction with advice from health care professionals.Offers information for locating federally and privately supported clinical trials for wide range of diseases and conditions. Research study in human volunteers to answer specific health questions. Interventional trials determine whether experimental treatments or new ways of using known therapies are safe and effective under controlled environments. Observational trials address health issues in large groups of people or populations in natural settings. ClinicalTrials.gov contains trials sponsored by National Institutes of Health, other federal agencies, and private industry. Studies listed in database are conducted in all 50 States and in 178 countries.

View all literature mentions