Incidence of neutropenia and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in multiple myeloma: is current clinical practice adequate?

Текст сохранён. Часть иллюстраций пока доступна только в первоисточнике; загрузка будет проверена повторно.

Introduction

Neutropenia is a recognized complication of cytotoxic cancer therapy. Prolonged severe neutropenia increases the risk of serious infections and of febrile neutropenia, which can themselves be life-threatening. In addition, these conditions can lead to dose modifications or delays, which in turn reduce treatment efficacy [ 1 , 2 ]. As well as having a significant impact on patients’ well-being, febrile neutropenia places a considerable burden on hospital resources, with affected individuals frequently requiring immediate inpatient admission and antibiotic treatment [ 3 ].

An understanding of the neutropenia risk associated with multiple myeloma (MM) treatment is particularly important, given the immunodeficiencies caused by the impact of the disease on B cells, T cells, dendritic cells, and natural killer cells [ 4 ]. MM is characterized by proliferation of a clonal population of monotypic plasma cells that differentiate from normal B cells within the bone marrow and produce large amounts of immunoglobulin (M-protein), immunoglobulin (Ig) fragments, or light chains [ 5 ]. The abnormal expansion of plasma cells disrupts immune homeostasis, which can in turn lead to neutropenia, hypogammaglobulinaemia, and impaired lymphocyte function, all of which increase susceptibility to infection [ 6 ]. MM also affects numerous other organs, either directly (e.g. through accumulation of M-protein in the kidneys) or indirectly (e.g. if bone lesions lead to vertebral collapse in the thorax, this can lead to respiratory problems), which predisposes patients to infection [ 4 ]. Furthermore, patients with MM are often elderly and can have comorbidities; both factors can be associated with a weakened immune system [ 7 , 8 ]. In addition, patients frequently receive multiple, and often long, rounds of treatment with regimens that include dexamethasone, which can result in impaired immunity and hyperglycaemia, which in turn increase the risk of infection [ 4 ]; indeed, infection is the most frequent cause of death in patients with MM [ 4 ].

Antibiotic prophylaxis can prevent infections and reduce mortality in patients receiving cytotoxic therapy [ 9 ]; however, most studies of antibiotic efficacy in this setting have been limited to haematological cancers, and the prophylactic use of these agents has raised concerns regarding the development of antibiotic resistance [ 7 , 9 ]. Therefore, the Infectious Diseases Society of America currently limits its recommendation to the use of quinolones in patients predicted to have prolonged durations of profound neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] ≤ 100 cells/mm 3 after cytotoxic chemotherapy) [ 10 ].

Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been developed to reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia by stimulating neutrophil maturation and production in the bone marrow. Studies suggest that patients with MM are at high risk of infections during the first 2 months of chemotherapy [ 11 ]. Although G-CSF administration will not be effective in reducing the risk of infection if the cause of neutropenia is independent of the G-CSF pathway, or if the mechanism by which the drug increases the risk of infections is not related to neutropenia (such as in the case of dexamethasone), appropriate use of G-CSF prophylaxis can be particularly important to reduce the risk related to a low neutrophil count.

Given the high risk of infection in patients with MM, the immune toxicity of many of the agents used to treat the disease and the various mechanisms by which these agents reduce neutrophil count, we wished to gain a better understanding of the incidence of neutropenia in the treatment of MM and the use of G-CSF prophylaxis. Therefore, we reviewed the literature, with a focus on common standard regimens and important new agents.

Neutropenia associated with commonly used regimens in MM

To assess the risk and management of neutropenia associated with new and commonly used anti-myeloma agents, we searched the literature (titles, abstracts, and keywords) in February 2016 for phase 3 clinical trials or observational studies that reported neutropenia-related outcomes in patients with MM. We did not consider studies that were investigating the efficacy of stem cell transplantation (SCT) because for these studies, the main reported G-CSF-related outcomes were mobilization and neutrophil engraftment. Key studies on the newest regimens that were published after February 2016 were selected by authors for inclusion.

Although grade 3–4 neutropenia is a recognized complication of lenalidomide and pomalidomide treatment [ 12 , 13 ], our literature search revealed that it is widespread in patients with MM, with an incidence of over 10% reported for 28 different regimens (Table 1 ). Neutropenia rates reported below reflect the incidence of grade 3 or 4 events. Table 1 Neutropenia rates by regimen Regimen Range of reported grade 3 and 4 neutropenia, % Number of studies Thalidomide 0–≤ 5 1 CTD 0–≤ 5 1 VT 0–≤ 5 1 VP 0–≤ 5 1 Bortezomib 0–≤ 5 2 > 5–≤ 10 1 > 10–≤ 25 7 > 25–≤ 50 0 VD 0–≤ 5 2 > 5–≤ 10 1 > 10–≤ 25 2 VTD 0–≤ 5 2 > 10–≤ 25 2 > 25–≤ 50 1 Bortezomib-based > 5–≤ 10 1 > 10–≤ 25 2 > 25–≤ 50 1 Dexamethasone 0–≤ 5 5 > 10–≤ 25 1 Lenalidomide maintenance > 5–≤ 10 2 > 10–≤ 25 2 > 25–≤ 50 1 RD 0–≤ 5 1 > 5–≤ 10 1 > 10–≤ 25 11 > 25–≤ 50 9 > 50–≤ 75 2 RP maintenance > 5–≤ 10 1 RVD > 5–≤ 10 1 > 10–≤ 25 1 Lenalidomide-based > 10–≤ 25 2 > 25–≤ 50 5 ERD > 25–≤ 50 1 MP > 5–≤ 10 1 > 25–≤ 50 2 MPT > 10–≤ 25 1 > 25–≤ 50 1 PAN-BTZ-Dex > 25–≤ 50 1 VCD > 10–≤ 25 1 > 25–≤ 50 2 VMP > 10–≤ 25 1 > 25–≤ 50 2 VMPT > 25–≤ 50 1 PAD > 10–≤ 25 2 RCD consolidation > 10–≤ 25 1 PD > 25–≤ 50 4 PVD > 25–≤ 50 1 IRD > 10–≤ 25 1 Vorinostat + bortezomib > 10–≤ 25 1 KRD > 25–≤ 50 1 MPR > 50–≤ 75 1 > 75–100 1 CHOP > 50–≤ 75 1 HD-M > 50–≤ 75 1 > 75–100 3 VTD-PACE > 50–≤ 75 1 > 75–100 1 PACE > 75–100 1 CHOP cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone, CTD cyclophosphamide/thalidomide/dexamethasone, ERD elotuzumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, HD-M high-dose melphalan, IRD ixazomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, KRD carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, MP melphalan/prednisone, MPR melphalan/prednisone/lenalidomide, MPT melphalan/prednisone/thalidomide, PACE cisplatin/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/etoposide, PAD bortezomib/doxorubicin/dexamethasone, PD pomalidomide/dexamethasone, PVD pomalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, PAN-BTZ-Dex panobinostat/bortezomib/dexamethasone, RCD lenalidomide/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone, RD lenalidomide/dexamethasone, RCP lenalidomide/cyclophosphamide/prednisone, RP lenalidomide/prednisone, RVD lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, VCD bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone, VD bortezomib/dexamethasone, VMP bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone, VMPT bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone/thalidomide, VP bortezomib/prednisone, VT bortezomib/thalidomide, VTD bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone, VTD-PACE bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone/cisplatin/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/etoposide

Neutropenia with current anti-myeloma regimens

Bortezomib–dexamethasone-based regimens

A bortezomib–dexamethasone (VD) backbone is still widely used at first line for transplant-eligible patients; however, we found relatively few reports of neutropenia with VD-based triplet combinations. Neutropenia rates of 25% or lower were reported in two observational studies and a phase 3 study of patients receiving lenalidomide with VD; similar neutropenia rates were reported in the majority of studies investigating the addition of doxorubicin to VD (all phase 3 clinical trials) and the majority of phase 3 and observational studies in which thalidomide was added to VD [ 14 – 22 ]. In contrast, two of three phase 3 studies of combinations of cyclophosphamide and VD reported that neutropenia affected 40% of patients; neutropenia was also reported in 50% of participants in an observational study of the same regimen [ 17 , 21 , 23 ]. Only two studies reported G-CSF use in patients receiving a VD-based triplet regimen. In the retrospective observational study of lenalidomide with VD by Jimenez-Zepeda et al., 8 of 30 (3.75%) patients were administered G-CSF, and in a clinical trial by Palumbo et al. investigating doxorubicin with VD, 15 of 64 patients (4.3%) received G-CSF [ 15 , 22 ].

Immunomodulatory drug-based regimens

Lenalidomide–dexamethasone (RD)-containing regimens are among the most commonly used in patients with MM but are also among those with the highest reported incidences of neutropenia (Fig. 1 ). Lenalidomide can be combined with low- or high-dose dexamethasone; for simplicity, we included RD-based regimens regardless of the dose of dexamethasone used. Although RD was initially reported as low risk based on the pivotal phase 3 trial [ 8 , 24 ], we found other phase 3 and observational studies reporting higher incidences of neutropenia with RD (up to 61%) (Fig. 1 ) [ 14 , 25 – 46 ]. Infection rates were moderate compared with neutropenia rates (Table 2 ), reaching 37% in the expanded access study by Sun et al. [ 45 ]; however, rates of febrile neutropenia were low (< 1–6%, Table 2 ). Fig. 1 Rates of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia in commonly used regimens for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Each bubble represents one study. The size of the bubbles represents the number of patients in the study. Bubbles outlined in red are observational studies; the remainder are phase 3 clinical trials. Two points for lenalidomide + dexamethasone are not visible: an observational study with a neutropenia incidence of 16% ( N = 50) and an observational study with a neutropenia incidence of 35% ( N = 31) Table 2 Infection rates in regimens associated with high levels of neutropenia in selected regimens of interest Author/date Regimen Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia, % Grade 3 and 4 infection, % Febrile neutropenia, % Bortezomib–dexamethasone-based Jimenez-Zepeda et al. [ 15 ] RVD 7 26 NR Durie et al. [ 14 ] RVD 19 NR NR Garcia-Sanchez et al. [ 16 ] VTD 9 NR NR Takashima et al. [ 19 ] VTD 17 21 (not specified if grade 3–4) NR Wu et al. [ 20 ] VTD 43.3 (VTD) 40 (improved VTD) NR NR Moreau et al. [ 17 ] VTD 12 NR NR Niesvizky et al. [ 18 ] VTD 3 NR NR Palumbo et al. [ 22 ] PAD 36 15 (serious infection) 3 Mai et al. [ 21 ] PAD 11 13 (serious infection) NR Moreau et al. [ 17 ] VCD 23 NR NR Mai et al. [ 21 ] VCD 35 11 (serious infection) NR Kusano et al. [ 23 ] VCD 50 NR NR Melphalan–prednisone-based Hulin et al. [ 47 ] MP 9 NR NR Richardson et al. [ 48 ] MP 38 NR 4 Palumbo et al. [ 49 ] MP 37 7 0 Palumbo et al. [ 50 ] MPR 52 0.8 NR Palumbo et al. [ 49 ] MPR plus lenalidomide maintenance 67 grade 3 and 35 grade 4 11 7 MPR 64 grade 3 and 32 grade 4 15 2 Hulin et al. [ 47 ] MPT 23 Neutropenia did not translate into more frequent severe infections Facon et al. [ 28 ] MPT 45 17 3 Niesvizky et al. [ 18 ] VMP 21 NR NR Richardson et al. [ 48 ] VMP 40 NR 3 Palumbo et al. [ 51 ] VMP 28 9 2 Lenalidomide–dexamethasone-based Dimopoulos et al. [ 27 ] RD (low dose) 3 NR NR Dimopoulos et al. [ 27 ] RD (intermediate dose) 23 NR NR Mookerjee et al. [ 35 ] RD 11 NR NR Firatli Tuglular et al. [ 30 ] RD 10 NR NR Durie [ 14 ] RD 21 NR NR Zonder et al. [ 39 ] RD 21 16 NR Beksac et al. [ 25 ] RD 16 NR 4 Tosi et al. [ 38 ] RD 35 15 NR Fouquet et al. [ 32 ] RD 16 NR NR Family et al. [ 29 ] RD (4 cycles) 24 3.8 Huang et al. [ 34 ] RD 20 9 NR Dimopoulos et al. [ 26 ] RD 17 0 Firatli Tuglular et al. [ 31 ] RD 24 11 NR Gay et al. [ 52 ] RD 24 6 NR Moreau et al. [ 36 ] RD 16 NR NR Weber et al. [ 46 ] RD 41 22 3 Dimopoulos et al. [ 41 ] RD 30 11 3 Geraldes et al. [ 33 ] RD 35 25 NR Schwarzer et al. [ 37 ] RD 32 11 <1 Facon et al. [ 28 ] RD 28 29 1 Leleu et al. [ 42 ] RD 31 NR 3 Stewart et al. [ 44 ] RD 27 NR NR Lonial et al. [ 43 ] RD 44 NR NR Sun et al. [ 45 ] RD 61 37 NR Alegre et al. [ 40 ] RD 51 NR 6 Durie et al. [ 14 ] RVD RD 19 21 NR NR Jimenez-Zepeda et al. [ 15 ] RVD 7 26 NR Pomalidomide-based Dimopoulos et al. [ 53 ] PD 50 NR NR Maciocia et al. [ 54 ] PD 35 Neutropenic sepsis, 11 NR Miles and Wells [ 55 ] PD 26 Sepsis requiring admission, 24 NR San Miguel et al. [ 56 ] PD 48 30 10 High-dose melphalan Cook et al. [ 57 ] HD-M plus salvage ASCT 75 NR NR Palumbo et al. [ 58 ] HD-M 77 40 17 Palumbo et al. [ 50 ] HD-M 94 16.3 (includes febrile neutropenia) NR Gay et al. [ 59 ] HD-M 80 19 NR ASCT autologous stem cell transplantation, HD-M high-dose melphalan, MP melphalan/prednisone, MPR melphalan/prednisone/lenalidomide, MPT melphalan/prednisone/thalidomide, NR not reported, PD pomalidomide/dexamethasone, RD lenalidomide/dexamethasone, RVD lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone, VMP bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone

When reported, G-CSF use was between 22 and 54% and was initiated after the manifestation of neutropenia. In a phase 3 trial by Dimopoulos et al., G-CSF was used to manage neutropenia in 22% of patients. In the same study, the neutropenia rate was 30%, the infection rate was 11%, and dose reductions or interruptions due to any adverse event (AE) were recorded in 76% of patients [ 41 ]. In a similar phase 3 study by Weber et al., in which 41% of patients experienced neutropenia and 22% had an infection, 34% received reactive G-CSF and dose reductions were required in 77% of participants (neutropenia was mentioned as a primary reason for dose reduction) [ 46 ]. In the observational study by Leleu et al., 31% of patients experienced neutropenia and 23% received G-CSF, which the authors noted was probably reactive. Dose reductions and interruptions with neutropenia as the primary cause were rare [ 42 ]. In the retrospective analysis of patients on the MM-016 extended access programme by Sun et al., intermittent G-CSF (4–6 doses per cycle) was used reactively in 49% of patients and as secondary prophylaxis in 5%. Infection rates remained high, but patients receiving G-CSF were able to receive RD for longer than those who did not receive G-CSF, which appeared to lead to improved response rates [ 45 ]. In the French observational study by Fouquet et al., 34% of patients had a dose reduction owing to either neutropenia or thrombocytopenia [ 32 ]; in the Greek study by Katodritou et al., neutropenia was the most common AE leading to treatment discontinuation (7%) [ 60 ]. G-CSF use was not reported in either publication.

Pomalidomide with dexamethasone has been approved for patients who have received at least two previous therapies including bortezomib and lenalidomide [ 61 ]. Phase 3 studies suggest that the risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (approximately 50%) is slightly higher with pomalidomide than with lenalidomide (Fig. 1 ) [ 53 , 56 ]. Subsequent analysis of one study found that neutropenia was the most common AE leading to dose reductions and interruptions (4.7 and 19.4% of patients, respectively) [ 62 ]. Although San Miguel et al. noted that neutropenia did not necessarily translate into infection, the data showed that in the active arm, 30% of patients experienced infection (compared with 24% in the control arm) and 10% experienced grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia, which was much higher than the incidence in the control arm (< 1%) [ 56 ].

It should be noted that pomalidomide has so far been studied in heavily pre-treated patients who are therefore likely to have advanced disease and reduced bone marrow function; in the pivotal phase 3 study, the median number of previous treatments was five, and over 90% of patients had received more than two previous treatments [ 56 ]. Neutropenia rates in patients using pomalidomide at earlier lines of therapy may therefore be lower than the rates reported in the phase 3 study. Two small observational studies suggest that the real-world incidence of neutropenia with this regimen may be slightly lower. However, despite the lower rates of neutropenia, in the observational study by Maciocia et al., 11% of patients had grade 3 or 4 neutropenic sepsis and Miles et al. reported sepsis requiring hospital admission in 24% of patients [ 54 , 55 ]. Additional data in a larger population would be needed to confirm these findings.

In common with lenalidomide, the phase 3 studies reported that dose interruptions and dose reductions with pomalidomide were common (67 and 66%, and 27 and 22% for interruptions and reductions, respectively, in the two studies) [ 53 , 56 ]. G-CSF use was reported only by San Miguel et al. and was used in 43% of patients [ 56 ].

Melphalan–prednisone-based regimens

All studies of melphalan–prednisone-based regimens were clinical trials; we did not find any observational studies reporting neutropenia rates. Melphalan and prednisone (MP) alone were associated with a risk of neutropenia of less than 10% in one trial and a higher risk (37–38%) in two trials (Table 2 ) [ 47 – 49 ]. However, the combination of melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) was consistently associated with neutropenia in over half of patients [ 49 , 50 ]. In contrast, although combining melphalan and prednisone with thalidomide (MPT) or bortezomib (VMP) was also associated with neutropenia incidences of over 20%, there were no reports of these agents causing neutropenia in more than 50% of patients [ 18 , 28 , 47 , 48 , 51 ].These differences are illustrated by the recently published head-to-head study of MPR versus MPT, which found that the incidence of neutropenia with MPR was more than twice that with MPT [ 63 ]. This indicates that the risk of neutropenia is affected by the type and the number of agents in a regimen, and highlights the importance of considering strategies to reduce the neutropenic risk.

The patient population should also be considered when interpreting these data: MP-based combinations are usually recommended for patients not eligible for SCT. Such patients are typically elderly with poor performance status, both of which are recognized risk factors for neutropenia [ 7 ]. Indeed, all five studies of VMP and MPT were in patients who were elderly or not eligible for transplantation or high-dose therapy. Whereas a study of MPR in transplant-eligible patients reported a neutropenia rate of 52% [ 50 ], neutropenia rates were approximately 100% (64–67% grade 3 and 32–35% grade 4) in the study of transplant-ineligible patients [ 49 ]. In clinical practice, VMP is the most commonly used melphalan-containing regimen and MPR is not currently recommended by some guidelines [ 64 ].

Despite the high rates of neutropenia seen with these triplets, few patients experienced infections, and rates of febrile neutropenia were low (Table 2 ). Notably, Hulin et al. found that in their trial of MPT in elderly patients, neutropenia did not appear to result in more frequent serious infection [ 47 ]. This is particularly encouraging, given that infection can be more serious in elderly patients than in younger individuals. The low rate of infection compared with RD regimens could reflect the tolerability profile of prednisone, which differs from that of dexamethasone. Moreover, real-world infection rates may differ from those seen in these phase 3 studies; the selection criteria for clinical trials might exclude the frailest patients who could be most likely to experience infections.

Hulin et al. reported that thalidomide increased the requirement for dose reductions (for any reason) owing to AEs when added to MP (20 vs 3%) [ 47 ]. Richardson et al. was the only paper describing an MP study that reported the number of dose reductions due to neutropenia. In this study, bortezomib and melphalan were reduced in 2 and 5% of patients, respectively, in the VMP arm and melphalan was reduced in 7% of patients in the MP arm [ 48 ]. In the same study, G-CSF was used in 21 and 23% of patients, respectively [ 48 ]. However, the publication did not specify whether G-CSF was used prophylactically or reactively, so it is difficult to draw any conclusions regarding the relationship between its use and rates of neutropenia and infection or dose maintenance.

Neutropenia associated with newer treatment regimens

In the past 2 years, several new therapies have been approved for the treatment of patients with MM. Panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone has been approved for patients with relapsing and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least two previous regimens including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent [ 65 ]. In the phase 3 study, neutropenia was reported in 35% of patients. However, the evidence base for this agent is still small [ 66 ]. Carfilzomib has recently been approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, and with dexamethasone alone, for patients with RRMM [ 67 ]. Neutropenia of grade 3 or higher has been reported in the triplet combination [ 44 ], but this is likely to reflect the AE profile of lenalidomide, rather than that of carfilzomib (the incidence was 30% with carfilzomib vs 27% with lenalidomide and dexamethasone). In a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study conducted to assess progression-free survival in patients with MM receiving lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone and ixazomib, neutropenia was observed in 23% of patients receiving active treatment and 24% of patients receiving placebo [ 68 ]. In a phase 3 study comparing lenalidomide with dexamethasone and daratumumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone, neutropenia occurred more frequently in the daratumumab group (52%) than in the control group (37%). Corresponding figures for febrile neutropenia were 5.7% (all of grade 3 or 4) and 2.5% (all of grade 3 or 4), respectively [ 69 ]. The incidence of neutropenia was lower in patients treated with VD–daratumumab than in those receiving VD alone in a phase 3 randomized trial: 12.8 and 4.2%, respectively [ 70 ]. In another phase 3 trial comparing elotozumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone alone (control group), neutropenia occurred at a lower rate in the elotozumab group (34%) than in the control group (44%) [ 71 ].

Regimens associated with a very high incidence of neutropenia

We found several regimens associated with a very high incidence (76–100%) of neutropenia. High-dose melphalan (HD-M) as part of SCT is a standard treatment approach in transplant-eligible patients and was reported to be associated with neutropenia in five publications [ 50 , 57 – 59 ]. Infection rates were high in the report of the phase 3 trial by Palumbo et al., despite prophylactic G-CSF administration (40% of patients had an infection and 17% had febrile neutropenia) [ 58 ]; however, considering the high rates of neutropenia, infection rates were relatively low in the other studies (Table 2 ), such as in Palumbo et al.’s report of their HD-M trial (16%) [ 50 ]. However, in both studies, patients were younger than 65 years of age; the risk–benefit profile of this regimen is likely to be different in elderly patients. Despite the high toxicity associated with this treatment approach, SCT remains the optimal treatment for patients with early-stage disease [ 59 ].

Other regimens associated with very high levels of neutropenia were bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone and cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (VTD-PACE) in patients with NDMM, and cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (PACE) in patients with RRMM, which resulted in neutropenia rates of 79 and 83% and febrile neutropenia rates of 26 and 33%, respectively [ 72 , 73 ].

Pegfilgrastim in MM

Over two decades ago, filgrastim, the first daily G-CSF, was approved for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for cancer [ 74 ]. Since then, lenograstim has also been developed as a daily G-CSF [ 75 ]. These agents are also indicated for mobilizing peripheral blood progenitor cells and for reducing the duration of neutropenia in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation [ 74 , 75 ]. In 2002, the first long-acting G-CSF, pegfilgrastim, was approved in Europe for reducing the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for cancer [ 76 ]. Pegfilgrastim may be preferred over filgrastim by patients and physicians owing to its reduced clearance, which means that only one dose is required per chemotherapy cycle [ 76 ]. Pegfilgrastim has also been shown to be more effective than filgrastim at reducing neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in clinical practice [ 77 , 78 ]. More recently (in 2013), lipegfilgrastim, another long-acting G-CSF, became available for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis [ 79 ].

To understand whether long-acting G-CSFs are used in the management of neutropenia in patients with MM, we performed an additional search for articles reporting pegfilgrastim use in patients with this disease. Our search was limited to articles published between 1 January 2013 and 17 February 2016 to capture current clinical practice. Few studies published in the past 3 years reported using pegfilgrastim in MM ( N = 16) (Supplementary Table 1 ).

Pegfilgrastim for neutropenia prophylaxis

Most studies investigated the use of pegfilgrastim with SCT to promote neutrophil engraftment; however, we found five reports of pegfilgrastim being used for neutropenia prophylaxis in patients with MM. Two of these studies used pegfilgrastim in lenalidomide-based regimens. An observational study of patients with RRMM found that pegfilgrastim was given to 8% of patients receiving RD [ 42 ]. Daily G-CSF was used more frequently (16% of patients). The authors stated that G-CSF use was likely to have been reactive, not prophylactic.

Pegfilgrastim was used as primary prophylaxis in a dose-escalation study of lenalidomide, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone for patients with RRMM [ 80 ]. Pegfilgrastim allowed the dose of lenalidomide to be raised from 15 to 25 mg, in combination with doxorubicin 9 mg/m 2 and dexamethasone 40 mg. At this final dose, the maximum tolerated dose threshold of 33% or higher incidence of dose-limiting toxicity was still not reached; 48% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and 23% required dose reductions. The increased dose of lenalidomide facilitated by the addition of pegfilgrastim allowed a much larger proportion of patients to achieve a very good partial response or complete response, compared with the lower dose level (74 vs 23%).

Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis has been reported in a phase 1 study of hydroxychloroquine with cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone, and rapamycin in patients with RRMM. Of 15 patients evaluated for toxicity, one experienced grade 4 neutropenia [ 81 ]. One retrospective study compared pegfilgrastim and filgrastim primary prophylaxis for reducing neutropenia following SCT. The analysis found no statistically significant differences in median time to leukocyte recovery or duration of febrile neutropenia [ 82 ]. The authors concluded that the main difference between filgrastim and its pegylated form is the more convenient formulation of pegfilgrastim as a single fixed dose than as multiple daily administrations.

A prospective cohort study in which patients with advanced MM were treated with reactive filgrastim during their first course of chemotherapy and with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during their second course reported that pegfilgrastim appeared to reduce the incidence of neutropenia to a greater extent than did daily injections of filgrastim [ 83 ].

Tolerability of pegfilgrastim

Looking across all studies of pegfilgrastim, the agent appeared to be generally well tolerated. The prospective cohort study of sequential filgrastim and pegfilgrastim treatment reported that the main AEs following pegfilgrastim administration were mild fever and bone pain, which were experienced by 12% of patients [ 83 ]. In the observational IMPACT study, no adverse drug reactions to any G-CSF were reported [ 42 ]. Another study assessing pegfilgrastim with and without cyclophosphamide reported no hospitalizations due to toxicity in the pegfilgrastim group [ 84 ]. When pegfilgrastim was administered 6 days after a chemotherapy regimen of lenalidomide, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone, no treatment-related mortality was reported, and rates of febrile neutropenia and venous thromboembolism were less than 10% [ 85 – 87 ]. One phase 1 study assessed escalating doses of melphalan and carfilzomib with a constant pegfilgrastim dose. Although efficacy and safety data are not specific to pegfilgrastim, the authors did report infection in 58% of patients, febrile neutropenia in 33%, and pneumonia, bacteraemia and urinary tract infection each in 8% of patients [ 88 ]. A similar phase 1 dose-escalation study reported four episodes of thrombocytopenia, one episode of neutropenia and five episodes of lymphopenia, all grade 4 in severity, in a population of 15 patients [ 81 ]. Although these data were more specific for the chemotherapy treatment of hydroxylchloroquine (at ascending doses) along with cyclophosphamide and rapamycin, patients were also treated with pegfilgrastim on day 6.

Characteristics of patients receiving pegfilgrastim

In the observational study by Leleu et al. of patients with RRMM receiving RD, those who received pegfilgrastim were more likely to have International Staging System stage III at diagnosis, more than four previous treatments and more comorbidities than those who were given daily G-CSFs [ 42 ]. They were also more likely to be younger and to be receiving the recommended 25 mg dose of lenalidomide [ 42 ]. This suggests that pegfilgrastim may be reserved for patients with a high risk of neutropenia. Aside from that publication, we did not find any reports of the baseline characteristics of patients with MM who were given pegfilgrastim.

However, studies reporting pegfilgrastim use in patients with various haematological malignancies including MM, but that do not report MM data separately, do give details of the baseline characteristics of patients prescribed pegfilgrastim in real-world practice. Several single-centre studies comparing patients who received daily G-CSF with those receiving pegfilgrastim for reducing time to neutrophil engraftment found no differences between the two groups in terms of the baseline characteristics of the patients, although non-significant differences in patient age were seen [ 89 – 91 ]. In Carlino et al., patients receiving pegfilgrastim had a median age of 51 years, compared with 62 years in those receiving daily G-CSFs. Herbert et al. reported median ages of 50 and 56 years for those receiving pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, respectively. Another single-centre study comparing these agents for neutrophil engraftment found that patients given pegfilgrastim were younger than those receiving filgrastim (median age 46 vs 54 years; P = 0.05) [ 92 ]. This pattern of treatment could be due to a tendency to treat younger patients with more aggressive or intensive treatment than older patients.

Implications for clinical practice

Together, the studies described above indicate that G-CSF is not regularly used prophylactically in patients with MM. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer recommends G-CSF prophylaxis for patients undergoing a chemotherapy regimen with a high (≥ 20%) risk of febrile neutropenia and for patients receiving a chemotherapy regimen with an intermediate (10–20%) risk of febrile neutropenia if they have additional risk factors [ 7 ]. In patients with MM, it has been suggested that G-CSF prophylaxis should be administered to those who are undergoing treatment regimens associated with a neutropenia rate of over 50% (those that combine lenalidomide with doxorubicin and dexamethasone, with MP or with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone). G-CSF prophylaxis is also advised for patients with MM who have additional risk factors (e.g. those aged > 65 years, frail patients and patients with comorbidities) who are receiving a regimen associated with an intermediate risk of neutropenia (e.g. triplet regimens containing bortezomib) [ 8 ]. It may also be prudent to consider G-CSF use in patients with aggressive disease to help to avoid the need for treatment delays that may otherwise be required if neutropenia occurs [ 3 ]. This can be of particular importance during the first cycles of treatment (at diagnosis and at relapse), when the risk of cytopenia and of infections related to the high tumour burden can be higher. In the relapse setting, the risk of infections may also be particularly high (see pomalidomide data in heavily pre-treated patients), and considering prophylaxis for neutropenia in such patients may be prudent, to remove at least the risk of infections related to the low neutrophilic count. G-CSF is also given reactively in patients who develop neutropenia.

Reports of the use of pegfilgrastim in patients with MM are rare. Although the use of a long-acting G-CSF has been shown to improve outcomes versus the use of daily G-CSFs in other tumour types [ 77 , 78 ], and there are suggestions that the use of pegfilgrastim could lead to improved outcomes for patients with MM [ 80 ], the body of evidence is too small to draw firm conclusions. Large retrospective studies or prospective clinical trials will be needed to determine whether there is an advantage of using pegfilgrastim in this patient population.

It is also important to consider the mechanisms by which MM treatments cause neutropenia. Cytotoxic chemotherapies, such as the alkylating agent melphalan [ 93 ], target rapidly proliferating cells and therefore kill myeloid cells as well as malignant cells. However, agents with different mechanisms of action, such as immunomodulatory drugs and monoclonal antibodies, also induce neutropenia. Lenalidomide-induced neutropenia is thought to be associated with the loss of the transcription factor PU.1, which is required for granulopoiesis and neutrophil maturation [ 20 ]. The monoclonal antibody daratumumab has recently been approved for use as a monotherapy in Europe and as a monotherapy and in combination with RD or VD in the USA. Neutropenia has been reported for all regimens, but particularly when daratumumab is combined with RD. The mechanism is unclear, but the target of daratumumab, CD38, is known to regulate neutrophil chemotaxis and is present on myeloid stem cells [ 94 , 95 ]. Neutropenia has also been associated with the monoclonal antibody rituximab; in this setting, it has a late onset and is thought to correlate with B cell recovery following treatment. Rapidly expanding B cells consume the chemokine stromal cell-derived factor 1, which is required for neutrophil egress from the bone marrow [ 96 ]. This illustrates the variety of mechanisms by which drugs can induce neutropenia.

As noted above, few papers described G-CSF use in studies of anti-cancer agents in MM, and fewer still evaluated whether or not G-CSF use had a beneficial effect. Further research is required in order to understand how to optimize G-CSF prophylaxis according to the anti-cancer agent used.

Discussion and conclusions

The pathophysiology of MM, and its tendency to occur in elderly patients, means that neutropenia (and potentially infection) is a common occurrence. MM is a long-lasting disease that requires several treatment courses. Patients may have pre-existing hypogammaglobulinaemia and lymphopenia, in addition to neutrophil destruction by anti-cancer agents. Physicians need to be aware of the incidence and causes of low neutrophil counts, in addition to other risk factors for infection, in order to understand the risk for each of their patients and to manage this risk effectively.

Although infections and febrile neutropenia are lower than may be expected, we found a lack of data on antibiotic prophylaxis in the identified studies, so it is unclear to what extent antibiotics may be influencing infection rates. One of the most important factors influencing infection risk is the duration of neutropenia. This is generally short with most of the commonly used outpatient regimens, which may explain the low incidence of infections. Much of the available data are, however, from clinical trials, in which the patients represent a highly selected population with fewer comorbidities than the overall population. Therefore, rates of infection in clinical practice may be expected to be higher than those reported in the trials, particularly in patients who are elderly, in those with comorbidities, those who have very aggressive disease or those who have received multiple lines of therapy. In these patients, preventing neutropenia is particularly important and may help to avoid treatment delays or dose reductions, thus maximizing patient benefit.

Despite the importance of reducing the incidence and duration of neutropenia, few studies report using G-CSF in this patient population, and none of the studies we identified reported primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. Similar inconsistencies in reporting were found by Chan et al. in their analysis of the reporting of supportive care use in clinical trials published between January 2005 and June 2009 [ 97 ]. It is therefore difficult to draw conclusions about the potential role of G-CSF in MM. Nevertheless, two studies did report that G-CSF use permitted increased durations of chemotherapy use, which translated into improved response rates.

Further studies are warranted to evaluate the need for G-CSF prophylaxis in MM. If such treatment is required, there are preliminary suggestions that pegfilgrastim may be preferred over daily G-CSFs owing to the single-use formula. Pegfilgrastim may be particularly useful in patients at high risk of prolonged severe neutropenia, owing to the myelotoxicity of the regimen; patient risk factors such as old age, frailty or poor compliance; disease risk factors such as high tumour burden or a combination of all three.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1 (DOCX 73.9 KB)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00277-017-3191-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Kim Allcott Ph.D. from Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, UK, who provided medical writing support, and Stéphane Gamboni Ph.D. and Sarah Petrig BSc from Amgen (Europe) GmbH for their editorial support. Medical writing support was funded by Amgen (Europe) GmbH.

Author contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the conception of the article, were involved with developing the draft of the article and revising it critically for important intellectual content, approved the final manuscript as submitted and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

1. Lyman GH Impact of chemotherapy dose intensity on cancer patient outcomes J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2009 7 1 99 108 10.6004/jnccn.2009.0009 19176210

2. Viscoli C Varnier O Machetti M Infections in patients with febrile neutropenia: epidemiology, microbiology, and risk stratification Clin Infect Dis 2005 40 Suppl 4 S240 S245 10.1086/427329 15768329

3. Lyman GH Kuderer NM Epidemiology of febrile neutropenia Support Cancer Ther 2003 1 1 23 35 10.3816/SCT.2003.n.002 18628128

4. Nucci M Anaissie E Infections in patients with multiple myeloma in the era of high-dose therapy and novel agents Clin Infect Dis 2009 49 8 1211 1225 10.1086/605664 19769539

5. De Raeve HR Vanderkerken K The role of the bone marrow microenvironment in multiple myeloma Histol Histopathol 2005 20 4 1227 1250 16136504 10.14670/HH-20.1227

6. Pratt G Goodyear O Moss P Immunodeficiency and immunotherapy in multiple myeloma Br J Haematol 2007 138 5 563 579 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06705.x 17686051

7. Aapro MS Bohlius J Cameron DA Dal Lago L Donnelly JP Kearney N Lyman GH Pettengell R Tjan-Heijnen VC Walewski J Weber DC Zielinski C European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours Eur J Cancer 2011 47 1 8 32 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013 21095116

8. Palumbo A Blade J Boccadoro M Palladino C Davies F Dimopoulos M Dmoszynska A Einsele H Moreau P Sezer O Spencer A Sonneveld P San Miguel J How to manage neutropenia in multiple myeloma Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2012 12 1 5 11 10.1016/j.clml.2011.11.001 22178143

9. Gafter-Gvili A Fraser A Paul M Vidal L Lawrie TA van de Wetering MD Kremer LC Leibovici L Antibiotic prophylaxis for bacterial infections in afebrile neutropenic patients following chemotherapy Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 1 CD004386 22258955 10.1002/14651858.CD004386.pub3 PMC4170789

10. Freifeld AG Bow EJ Sepkowitz KA Boeckh MJ Ito JI Mullen CA Raad II Rolston KV Young JA Wingard JR Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of America Clin Infect Dis 2011 52 4 e56 e93 10.1093/cid/cir073 21258094

11. Oken MM Pomeroy C Weisdorf D Bennett JM Prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of early infection in multiple myeloma Am J Med 1996 100 6 624 628 10.1016/S0002-9343(95)00043-7 8678082

12. Bird JM Owen RG D'Sa S Snowden JA Pratt G Ashcroft J Yong K Cook G Feyler S Davies F Morgan G Cavenagh J Low E Behrens J Haemato-Oncology Task Force of British Committee for Standards in Haematology, U. K. Myeloma Forum Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma 2011 Br J Haematol 2011 154 1 32 75 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08573.x 21569004

13. Hanaizi Z Flores B Hemmings R Camarero J Sancho-Lopez A Salmonson T Gisselbrecht C Laane E Pignatti F The European Medicines Agency review of pomalidomide in combination with low-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma: summary of the scientific assessment of the committee for medicinal products for human use Oncologist 2015 20 3 329 334 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0073 25673103 PMC4350811

14. Durie B Hoering A Rajkumar SV Abidi MH Epstein J Kahanic SP Thakuri MC Reu FJ Reynolds CM Sexton R Orlowski RZ Barlogie B Dispenzieri A Bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone vs. lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients (PTS) with previously untreated multiple myeloma without an intent for immediate autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT): results of the randomized phase III trial SWOG S0777 Blood 2015 126 23 25 10.1038/s41408-020-0311-8 PMC7214419 32393732

15. Jimenez-Zepeda VH Reece DE Trudel S Chen C Tiedemann R Kukreti V Lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade) and dexamethasone for heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Leuk Lymphoma 2013 54 3 555 560 10.3109/10428194.2012.719614 22881043

16. Garcia-Sanchez R, Gonzalez-Fernandez A, Garcia-Fortes M, Rivas-Luque M, Fernandez-Fernandez A, Cabrera Ruiz F, Campos-Garrigues A, Caparros-Miranda I, Queipo De Llano-Temboury MP, Rosell-Mas A, Ruiz-Arredondo JJ (2015) Frontline treatment scheme VTD (bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone) in patients with multiple myeloma transplant candidates at our center. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 15(Suppl 3):e168–e169

17. Moreau P Hulin C Macro M Caillot D Chaleteix C Roussel M Garderet L Royer B Brechignac S Tiab M Puyade M Escoffre M Stoppa AM Facon T Pegourie B Chaoui D Jaccard A Slama B Marit G Laribi K Godmer P Luycx O Eisenmann JC Allangha O Glaisner S Dib M Araujo C Fontan J Belhadj K Wetterwald M Dorvaux V Fermand JP Rodon P Kolb B Lenain P Planche L Biron L Caillon H Avet-Loiseau H Dejoie T Attal M Bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD) is superior to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with de novo multiple myeloma. Results of the prospective IFM 2013-04 trial Blood 2015 126 393 10.1182/blood-2015-03-635805

18. Niesvizky R, Flinn IW, Rifkin RM, Gabrail NY, Charu V, Clowney B, Essell J, Gaffar YA, Warr TA, Neuwirth R, Corzo D, Reeves JA (2010) Phase 3b UPFRONT study: safety and efficacy of weekly bortezomib maintenance therapy after bortezomib-based induction regimens in elderly, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Blood 116:619

19. Takashima S Miyamoto T Kadowaki M Ito Y Aoki T Takase K Shima T Yoshimoto G Kato K Muta T Shiratsuchi M Takenaka K Iwasaki H Teshima T Kamimura T Akashi K Combination of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTD) as a consolidation therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation for symptomatic multiple myeloma in Japanese patients Int J Hematol 2014 100 2 159 164 10.1007/s12185-014-1611-1 24928523

20. Wu S Zheng C Chen S Cai X Shi Y Lin B Chen Y Subcutaneous administration of bortezomib in combination with thalidomide and dexamethasone for treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients Biomed Res Int 2015 2015 927105 26425561 10.1155/2015/927105 PMC4575715

21. Mai EK Bertsch U Durig J Kunz C Haenel M Blau IW Munder M Jauch A Schurich B Hielscher T Merz M Huegle-Doerr B Seckinger A Hose D Hillengass J Raab MS Neben K Lindemann HW Zeis M Gerecke C Schmidt-Wolf IG Weisel K Scheid C Salwender H Goldschmidt H Phase III trial of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) versus bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (PAd) in newly diagnosed myeloma Leukemia 2015 29 8 1721 1729 10.1038/leu.2015.80 25787915

22. Palumbo A Gay F Bringhen S Falcone A Pescosta N Callea V Caravita T Morabito F Magarotto V Ruggeri M Avonto I Musto P Cascavilla N Bruno B Boccadoro M Bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone in advanced multiple myeloma Ann Oncol 2008 19 6 1160 1165 10.1093/annonc/mdn018 18326520

23. Kusano Y Terui Y Hatake K CyBorD demonstrated its superiority to bortezomib plus dexamethasone in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015 15 e262 e263 10.1016/j.clml.2015.07.552

24. Rajkumar SV Jacobus S Callander N Fonseca R Vesole D Williams M Abonour R Siegel D Greipp P Phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (E4A03): a trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group J Clin Oncol 2007 25 18_suppl LBA8025

25. Beksac M Ozdemir E Yagci M Buyukkececi F Cagirgan S Ozdogu H Kalayoglu Besisik S Demirkan F Uskent N Kaygusuz I Firat Tuglular T Goker H Ozcan MA Cetiner M Akyol Erikci A Turgut B Clinical experience with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Len + Dex) for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM): safety and efficacy data from the Turkish compassionate use program (cup) Haematologica 2011 96 S103 S104

26. Dimopoulos M Petrucci M Foa R Catalano J Kropff M Yu Z Herbein L Grote L Jacques C Palumbo A Therapy following relapse on melphalan-prednisonelenalidomide (LEN) followed by Len maintenance in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: efficacy and safety of second line LEN in MM-015 Haematologica 2013 98 104 105

27. Dimopoulos MA, Roussou M, Gavriatopoulou M, Migkou M, Gkotzamanidou M, Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou E, Christoulas D, Terpos E, Kastritis E (2012) Lenalidomide with low or intermediate dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma. Blood 120:4028 10.3109/10428194.2016.1151513 26916452

28. Facon T Dimopoulos MA Dispenzieri A Catalano JV Belch A Hulin C Cavo M Pinto A Weisel KC Ludwig H Bahlis N Banos A Tiab M Delforge M Cavenagh J Geraldes C Lee JJ Chen C Oriol A De La Rubia J Qiu L White D Binder D Anderson KC Moreau P Attal M Knight R Chen G Van Oostendorp J Jacques CJ Ervin- Haynes A Benboubker L Lenalidomide+low-dose dexamethasone (RD) vs. melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (PTS): the FIRST trial Haematologica 2014 99 220 221

29. Family L Yang SJ Klippel Z Li Y Page JH Rodriguez R Chao C Risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in select myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens Blood 2015 126 23 3257 10.6004/jnccn.2017.7010 28874597

30. Firatli Tuglular T Pehlivan M Is H Ayyildiz MO Saydam G Sonmez M Kalayotlu Besisik S Ozgur G Gurkan E Kaynar L Ali R Ozet G Demirkan F Ongoren S Ozdotu H Gunduz E Naci Tiftik E Salim O Turgut M Hacihanefiotlu A Barbaros Ure U Ozdemir E Altuntas F Simsek D Ulu N Beksac M Post-authorization safety of lenalidomide + dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Turkey Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015 15 e301 e302 10.1016/j.clml.2015.07.611

31. Firatli Tuglular T Noyan-Atalay F Eser A Toptas T Pepedil F Kaygusuz-Atagunduz I Adiguzel C Lenalidomide in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in relapse/refractory multiple myeloma: a retrospective study Haematologica 2013 98 614 615

32. Fouquet G Tardy S Demarquette H Bonnet S Gay J Debarri H Herbaux C Guidez S Michel J Perrot A Serrier C Miljkovic D Avet Loiseau H Facon T Hulin C Leleu X Efficacy and safety profile of long-term exposure to lenalidomide in patients with recurrent multiple myeloma Cancer 2013 119 20 3680 3686 10.1002/cncr.28274 23921945

33. Geraldes C Pereira M Magalhaes E Gomes M Afonso R Sousa I Teixeira A Results from real life: lenalidomide & dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma outside clinical trials Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2013 13 S162 S163 10.1016/j.clml.2012.09.003

34. Huang SY Yu YB Yeh SP Chen TY Kao WY Chen CC Wang MC Lin HY Lin SF Lin TH Hua Y Puccio-Pick M DeMarco D Jacques C Dunn P A non-interventional observational registry of patients (Pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with lenalidomide (LEN) and dexamethasone (DEX) in Taiwan Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015 15 e299 10.1016/j.clml.2015.07.607

35. Mookerjee A, Gupta R, Sharma A, Saikia T, Kumar L (2011) Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone compared with thalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone: a randomised phase III study. Blood 118(21)

36. Moreau P Masszi T Grzasko N Bahlis NJ Hansson M Pour L Sandhu I Ganly P Baker BW Jackson S Stoppa AM Simpson DR Gimsing P Palumbo A Garderet L Cavo M Kumar SK Touzeau C Buadi F Laubach JP Lin J Berg D DiBacco A Hui AM Richardson PG Ixazomib, an investigational oral proteasome inhibitor (PI), in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD), significantly extends progression-free survival (PFS) for patients (PTS) with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): the phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study ( NCT01564537 ) Blood 2015 126 23 727

37. Schwarzer A Fruhauf S Konigsmann M Schnell R Reeb M Heits F Tirier C Prange-Krex G Knauf W Bachinger A Weiligmann C Hoppe G Glasmacher A Schmidt B Treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients with lenalidomide/dexamethasone in routine clinical practice Oncol Res Treatment 2014 37 291

38. Tosi P Gamberi B Castagnari B Molinari AL Savini P Ceccolini M Tani M Merli A Imola M Mianulli AM Cellini C Tomassetti S Merli F Fattori P Zaccaria A Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone in elderly patients with advanced, relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and renal failure Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 2013 5 1 1 5 10.4084/mjhid.2013.037 PMC3684317 23795275

39. Zonder JA Crowley J Hussein MA Bolejack V Moore Jr DF Whittenberger BF Abidi MH Durie BGM Barlogie B Lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone as initial therapy for multiple myeloma: a randomized Southwest Oncology Group trial (S0232) Blood 2010 116 26 5838 5841 10.1182/blood-2010-08-303487 20876454 PMC3031379

40. Alegre A Oriol-Rocafiguera A Garcia-Larana J Mateos MV Sureda A Martinez-Chamorro C Cibeira MT Aguado B Knight R Rosettani B Efficacy, safety and quality-of-life associated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: the Spanish experience Leukemia & Lymphoma 2012 53 9 1714 1721 10.3109/10428194.2012.662643 22292853

41. Dimopoulos M Spencer A Attal M Prince HM Harousseau JL Dmoszynska A San Miguel J Hellmann A Facon T Foa R Corso A Masliak Z Olesnyckyj M Yu Z Patin J Zeldis JB Knight RD Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2007 357 21 2123 2132 10.1056/NEJMoa070594 18032762

42. Leleu X Terpos E García Sanz R Cooney J O'Gorman P Minarik J Greil R Williams C Gray D Szabo Z An international, multicenter, prospective, observational study of neutropenia in patients being treated with lenalidomide + dexamethasone for relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RR-MM) Am J Hematol 2016 91 8 806 811 10.1002/ajh.24416 27169523

43. Lonial S Dimopoulos M Palumbo A White D Grosicki S Spicka I Walter-Croneck A Moreau P Mateos MV Magen H Belch A Reece D Beksac M Spencer A Oakervee H Orlowski RZ Taniwaki M Rollig C Einsele H KL W Singhal A San-Miguel J Matsumoto M Katz J Bleickardt E Poulart V Anderson KC Richardson P Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2015 373 7 621 631 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654 26035255

44. Stewart AK, Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Masszi T, Spicka I, Oriol A, Hajek R, Rosinol L, Siegel DS, Mihaylov GG, Goranova-Marinova V, Rajnics P, Suvorov A, Niesvizky R, Jakubowiak A, Miguel JFS, Ludwig H, Zojwalla N, Tonda ME, Xing B, Moreau P, Palumbo A (2014) Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone vs lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients (Pts) with relapsed multiple myeloma: interim results from ASPIRE, a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 3 study. Blood 124(21)

45. Sun HL Atenafu EG Yeboah E Reece DE Trudel S Kukreti V Masih-Khan E Winter A Chen C Intermittent granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for neutropenia management in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone Leukemia and Lymphoma 2015 56 2 407 414 10.3109/10428194.2014.915544 24738975

46. Weber DM Chen C Niesvizky R Wang M Belch A Stadtmauer EA Siegel D Borrello I Rajkumar SV Chanan-Khan AA Lonial S Yu Z Patin J Olesnyckyj M Zeldis JB Knight RD Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma in North America N Engl J Med 2007 357 21 2133 2142 10.1056/NEJMoa070596 18032763

47. Hulin C Facon T Rodon P Pegourie B Benboubker L Doyen C Dib M Guillerm G Salles B Eschard JP Lenain P Casassus P Azais I Decaux O Garderet L Mathiot C Fontan J Lafon I Virion JM Moreau P Efficacy of melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide in patients older than 75 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: IFM 01/01 trial J Clin Oncol 2009 27 22 3664 3670 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.0948 19451428

48. Richardson PG Schlag R Khuageva N Dimopoulos M Shpilberg O Kropff M Vekemans MC Petrucci MT Rossiev V Hou J Robak T Mateos MV Anderson K Esseltine DL Cakana A Liu K Deraedt W van de Velde H San Miguel JF Characterization of haematological parameters with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in newly diagnosed myeloma, with evaluation of long-term outcomes and risk of thromboembolic events with use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: analysis of the VISTA trial Br J Haematol 2011 153 2 212 221 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08569.x 21375521

49. Palumbo A Hajek R Delforge M Kropff M Petrucci MT Catalano J Gisslinger H Wiktor-Jedrzejczak W Zodelava M Weisel K Cascavilla N Iosava G Cavo M Kloczko J Blade J Beksac M Spicka I Plesner T Radke J Langer C Yehuda DB Corso A Herbein L Yu Z Mei J Jacques C Dimopoulos MA Continuous lenalidomide treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2012 366 19 1759 1769 10.1056/NEJMoa1112704 22571200

50. Palumbo A Cavallo F Gay F Di Raimondo F Ben Yehuda D Petrucci MT Pezzatti S Caravita T Cerrato C Ribakovsky E Genuardi M Cafro A Marcatti M Catalano L Offidani M Carella AM Zamagni E Patriarca F Musto P Evangelista A Ciccone G Omede P Crippa C Corradini P Nagler A Boccadoro M Cavo M Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2014 371 10 895 905 10.1056/NEJMoa1402888 25184862

51. Palumbo A Bringhen S Larocca A Rossi D Di Raimondo F Magarotto V Patriarca F Levi A Benevolo G Vincelli ID Grasso M Franceschini L Gottardi D Zambello R Montefusco V Falcone AP Omede P Marasca R Morabito F Mina R Guglielmelli T Nozzoli C Passera R Gaidano G Offidani M Ria R Petrucci MT Musto P Boccadoro M Cavo M Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and improved survival J Clin Oncol 2014 32 7 634 640 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.0023 24449241

52. Gay F Bringhen S Offidani M Liberati A Cellini C Magarotto V Benevolo G Aitoro G Patriarca F Omede P Conticello C Montefusco V Rossi D Palladino C Pour L Allegra A Pietrantuono G Falcone A Rocci A Zambello R Ledda A Gentili S Musto P Boccadoro M Hajek R Palumbo A Efficacy and safety of 3 lenalidomide-based combinations in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: results from the phase 3 community based EMN01 trial Haematologica 2013 98 95 96 10.3324/haematol.2012.063172 22875617 PMC3533665

53. Dimopoulos MA Palumbo A Corradini P Cavo M Delforge M Weisel KC Ocio EM Di Raimondo F Hansson M Simcock M Miller N Slaughter A Peluso T Sternas L Zaki MH Moreau P An updated analysis of the stratus trial (MM-010): safety and efficacy of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LODEX) in patients (PTS) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) Blood 2015 126 23 4225

54. Maciocia N Sharpley F Belsham E Renshaw H Schey S Cheesman S Cerner A Rismani A D'Sa S Streetly M Reuben B Jenner M Ramasamy K Yong K Rabin N Outcome of pomalidomide therapy in relapsed/refractory myeloma: a UK multi-centre experience Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015 15 e288 e289 10.1016/j.clml.2015.07.590

55. Miles O Wells M Efficacy of pomalidomide after progression following lenalidomide and bortezomib—a multicenter retrospective study Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015 15 e302 10.1016/j.clml.2015.07.612

56. San Miguel J Weisel K Moreau P Lacy M Song K Delforge M Karlin L Goldschmidt H Banos A Oriol A Alegre A Chen C Cavo M Garderet L Ivanova V Martinez-Lopez J Belch A Palumbo A Schey S Sonneveld P Yu X Sternas L Jacques C Zaki M Dimopoulos M Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2013 14 11 1055 1066 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70380-2 24007748

57. Cook G Williams C Brown JM Cairns DA Cavenagh J Snowden JA Ashcroft AJ Fletcher M Parrish C Yong K Cavet J Hunter H Bird JM Chalmers A O'Connor S Drayson MT Morris TCM High-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation as consolidation therapy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma after previous autologous stem-cell transplantation (NCRI myeloma X relapse [intensive trial]): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2014 15 8 874 885 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70245-1 24948586

58. Palumbo A Bringhen S Bruno B Falcone AP Liberati AM Grasso M Ria R Pisani F Cangialosi C Caravita T Levi A Meloni G Nozza A Pregno P Gabbas A Callea V Rizzo M Annino L De Stefano V Musto P Baldi I Cavallo F Petrucci MT Massaia M Boccadoro M Melphalan 200 mg/m 2 versus melphalan 100 mg/m 2 in newly diagnosed myeloma patients: a prospective, multicenter phase 3 study Blood 2010 115 10 1873 1879 10.1182/blood-2009-09-241737 19965659

59. Gay F Oliva S Petrucci MT Conticello C Catalano L Corradini P Siniscalchi A Magarotto V Pour L Carella A Malfitano A Petro D Evangelista A Spada S Pescosta N Omede P Campbell P Liberati AM Offidani M Ria R Pulini S Patriarca F Hajek R Spencer A Boccadoro M Palumbo A 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 1629 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00389-7 26596670

60. Katodritou E Anagnostopoulos A Vadikolia C Lalayianni C Kotsopoulou M Repousis P Megalakaki A Rekleiti A Dadakaridou M Papageorgiou G Kyrtsonis M Matsouka P Giannakoulas N Kyriakou D Karras G Anagnostopoulos N Michalis E Briasoulis E Hatzimichael E Spanoudakis E Zikos P Tsakiridou A Tsionos K Anargyrou K Symeonidis A Maniati A Terpos E “Real world” data from patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have been treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, according to the standard clinical practice Haematologica 2013 98 604

61. Celgene (2016) Imnovid (pomalidomide) summary of product characteristics. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002682/WC500147717.pdf . Accessed 18 Jan 2017

62. Cavo M Dimopoulos MA Moreau P Palumbo A Corradini P Weisel K Ocio E Doyen C Anttila P Raymakers R San Miguel J Yu X Milller N Herring J Slaughter A Peluso T Sternas L Zaki M Delforge M Management of adverse events in the stratus trial, a phase 3b study evaluating safety and efficacy of pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone in refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma Haematologica 2015 100 253 254 10.3324/haematol.2014.113217 25398834 PMC4803140

63. Zweegman S van der Holt B Mellqvist UH Salomo M Bos GM Levin MD Visser-Wisselaar H Hansson M van der Velden AW Deenik W Gruber A Coenen JL Plesner T Klein SK Tanis BC Szatkowski DL Brouwer RE Westerman M Leys MR Sinnige HA Haukas E van der Hem KG Durian MF Mattijssen EV van de Donk NW Stevens-Kroef MJ Sonneveld P Waage A Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide versus melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in untreated multiple myeloma Blood 2016 127 9 1109 1116 10.1182/blood-2015-11-679415 26802176

64. Moreau P, San Miguel J, Sonneveld P, Mateos MV, Zamagni E, Avet-Loiseau H, Hajek R, Dimopoulos MA, Ludwig H, Einsele H, Zweegman S, Facon T, Cavo M, Terpos E, Goldschmidt H, Attal M, Buske C, Committee EG (2017) Multiple myeloma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 28(Suppl 4):iv52–iv61. 10.1093/annonc/mdx096 10.1093/annonc/mdx096 28453614

65. Novartis (2016) Farydak (panobinostat) summary of product characteristics. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003725/WC500193298.pdf . Accessed 18 January 2017

66. Richardson PG, Hungria VTM, Yoon SS, Beksac M, Dimopoulos MA, Elghandour A, Jedrzejczak WW, Guenther A, Nakorn TN, Siritanaratkul N, Schlossman RL, Hou J, Moreau P, Lonial S, Lee JH, Einsele H, Sopala M, Bengoudifa BR, Corrado C, San-Miguel JF (2014) PANORAMA 1: a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of panobinostat or placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 32(15 Suppl 1):8510. 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.8510

67. Amgen (2016) Kyprolis (carfilzomib) summary of product characteristics. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003790/WC500197692.pdf . Accessed 18 January 2017

68. Moreau P Masszi T Grzasko N Bahlis NJ Hansson M Pour L Sandhu I Ganly P Baker BW Jackson SR Stoppa AM Simpson DR Gimsing P Palumbo A Garderet L Cavo M Kumar S Touzeau C Buadi FK Laubach JP Berg DT Lin J Di Bacco A Hui AM van de Velde H Richardson PG Group T-MS Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2016 374 17 1621 1634 10.1056/NEJMoa1516282 27119237

69. Dimopoulos MA Oriol A Nahi H San-Miguel J Bahlis NJ Usmani SZ Rabin N Orlowski RZ Komarnicki M Suzuki K Plesner T Yoon SS Ben Yehuda D Richardson PG Goldschmidt H Reece D Lisby S Khokhar NZ O'Rourke L Chiu C Qin X Guckert M Ahmadi T Moreau P Investigators P Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2016 375 14 1319 1331 10.1056/NEJMoa1607751 27705267

70. Palumbo A Chanan-Khan A Weisel K Nooka AK Masszi T Beksac M Spicka I Hungria V Munder M Mateos MV Mark TM Qi M Schecter J Amin H Qin X Deraedt W Ahmadi T Spencer A Sonneveld P Investigators C Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2016 375 8 754 766 10.1056/NEJMoa1606038 27557302

71. Lonial S Dimopoulos M Palumbo A White D Grosicki S Spicka I Walter-Croneck A Moreau P Mateos MV Magen H Belch A Reece D Beksac M Spencer A Oakervee H Orlowski RZ Taniwaki M Rollig C Einsele H KL W Singhal A San-Miguel J Matsumoto M Katz J Bleickardt E Poulart V Anderson KC Richardson P Investigators ELOQUENT Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2015 373 7 621 631 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654 26035255

72. Muchtar E Ram R Raanani P Yeshurun M Oniashvili N Shpliberg O Magen-Nativ H Total therapy 3 (TT3)-based treatment for multiple myeloma—an extended single center experience Haematologica 2013 98 322 10.1016/j.leukres.2014.06.024 25060304

73. Isola I Granell M Marti JM Gironella M Garcia-Guinon A Lopez-Pardo J Muntanola A Abella E Motllo C Escoda L Sierra J Blade J Rosinol L Fernandez De Larrea C PACE as salvage therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015 15 e300 e301 10.1016/j.clml.2015.07.609

74. Amgen (2015) Neupogen (filgrastim) summary of product characteristics. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/23292 . Accessed 12 Sept 2016

75. Pharma C (2015) Granocyte (lenograstim) summary of product characteristics. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/8347 . Accessed 12 Sept 2016

76. Amgen (2015) Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) summary of product characteristics. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000420/human_med_000924.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124 . Accessed 12 Sept 2016

77. Pfeil AM Allcott K Pettengell R von Minckwitz G Schwenkglenks M Szabo Z Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer: a systematic review Support Care Cancer 2015 23 2 525 545 10.1007/s00520-014-2457-z 25284721

78. Cooper KL Madan J Whyte S Stevenson MD Akehurst RL Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Cancer 2011 11 1 404 10.1186/1471-2407-11-404 21943360 PMC3203098

79. Sicor Biotech (2016) Lonquex (lipegfilgrastim) summary of product characteristics. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002556/WC500148380.pdf . Accessed 12 September 2016

80. Knop S Gerecke C Liebisch P Topp MS Platzbecker U Sezer O Vollmuth C Falk K Glasmacher A Maeder U Einsele H Bargou RC Lenalidomide, adriamycin, and dexamethasone (RAD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a report from the German Myeloma Study Group DSMM (Deutsche Studiengruppe Multiples Myelom) Blood 2009 113 18 4137 4143 10.1182/blood-2008-10-184135 19182205

81. Scott EC, Vogl DT, Reasor-Heard S, Floyd K, Medvedova E, Spurgeon SE, Gordon M, Kratz A, Siegel MB, Loriaux M, Trubowitz P, Smith SD, Liu SQ, Arora R, Stadtmauer EA, Amaravadi RK, Maziarz RT (2014) A phase I study of hydroxychloroquine with infusional cyclophosphamide, pulse dexamethasone and rapamycin in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Blood 124:3449

82. Radic Kristo D, Zatezalo V, Jaksic B, Acamovic B, Planinc-Peraica A, Ostojic Kolonic S (2014) Comparison of peg-filgrastim versus filgrastim after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 49(Suppl. 1):S456

83. Cerchione C Catalano L Pareto AE Picardi M Pane F Pegfilgrastim in primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a real-life experience Support Care Cancer 2015 23 2 301 302 10.1007/s00520-014-2490-y 25341551

84. Tuazon S, Sharma M, Zhan T, Kasner M, Alpdogan O, Martinez U, Grosso D, Filicko J, Pro B, Wagner JL, Carabasi M, Flomenberg N, Weiss M (2014) Autologous stem cell mobilization with pegfilgrastim and planned plerixafor is equally effective and safer as compared with cyclophosphamide, pegfilgrastim and plerixafor. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 20(Suppl. 2):S119. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.12.175

85. Knop S, Langer C, Engelhardt M, Mugge LO, Rosler W, Reichle A, Rollig C, Hertenstein B, Gramatzki M, Bassermann F, Ostermann H, Sturm I, Ringhoffer M, Schafer-Eckart K, Falk K, Liebert A, Einsele H, Bargou R (2013) Lenalidomide, adriamycin, dexamethasone (RAD) followed by risk-adjusted transplant is a novel and very effective induction regimen in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Onkologie 36(Suppl. 7):39

86. Knop S, Langer C, Engelhardt M, Muegge LO, Roesler W, Reichle A, Rollig C, Hertenstein B, Gramatzki M, Bassermann F, Ostermann H, Sturm I, Ringhoffer M, Schaefer-Eckart K, Kraus S, Einsele H, Bargou RC (2013) Lenalidomide, adriamycin and dexamethasone (RAD) as an induction regimen in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma-interim results from a German multicenter phase II trial. Blood 122:1987

87. Knop S, Langer C, Engelhardt M, Mugge LO, Reichle A, Rosler W, Bassermann F, Hertenstein B, Sturm I, Rollig C, Ostermann H, Schafer-Eckart K, Ringhoffer M, Gunther A, Junghanss C, Biersack H, Strifler S, Bachinger A, Einsele H, Bargou RC (2014) Response to lenalidomide, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (RAD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is independent of cytogenetic risk and retained after double stem cell transplant. Blood 124:177

88. Costa LJ, Landau H, Venkata JK, Kang Y, Koehne G, Chung DJ, Lendvai N, Bentz T, Giralt S (2013) Phase 1 trial of carfilzomib + high dose melphalan conditioning regimen prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) for relapsed multiple myeloma. Blood 122:3329

89. Carlino D, Mele A, Rossini B, De Francesco R, Sibilla S, Greco G, Fina M, De Risi C, Morciano MR, Ostuni A, Pavone V (2013) Peg filgrastim versus daily granulocyte-colony stimulating factor: a comparison after autologous stem cell transplantation. Single centre experience. Haematologica 98:99

90. Kroll TM, Singavi A, Schmidt W, Eastwood D, Drobyski W, Horowitz MM, Palmer J, Pasquini MC, Rizzo JD, Saber W, Hari PN, Fenske T (2014) Safety of outpatient autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AUHCT) for multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 20(2 Suppl.):S114. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.12.166 10.1038/bmt.2015.46 PMC4490016 25867651

91. Herbert KE Gambell P Link EK Mouminoglu A Wall DM Harrison SJ Ritchie DS Seymour JF Prince HM Pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim for cytokine-alone mobilization of autologous haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells Bone Marrow Transplant 2013 48 3 351 356 10.1038/bmt.2012.145 22858510

92. Herrera JM, Huertas JF, Saavedra MA, Gomez R, Guerrero AJ, Duque JE, Urrego OM, Del Pilar Salcedo R, Martinez A (2014) Pegylated filgrastim is comparable with filgrastim as support for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 20(2 Suppl.):S112. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.12.161

93. Aspen Pharma (2014) Summary of product characteristics: melphalan 50 mg powder and solvent for solution for injection/infusion. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/703 . Accessed 16 October 2016

94. Partida-Sanchez S Cockayne DA Monard S Jacobson EL Oppenheimer N Garvy B Kusser K Goodrich S Howard M Harmsen A Randall TD Lund FE Cyclic ADP-ribose production by CD38 regulates intracellular calcium release, extracellular calcium influx and chemotaxis in neutrophils and is required for bacterial clearance in vivo Nat Med 2001 7 11 1209 1216 10.1038/nm1101-1209 11689885

95. Naeim F Chapter 2—principles of immunophenotyping Hematopathology 2008 27 55

96. Dunleavy K Tay K Wilson WH Rituximab-associated neutropenia Semin Hematol 2010 47 2 180 186 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2010.01.009 20350665 PMC7304500

97. Chan A Verma S Loibl S Crawford J Choi MR Dreiling L Vandenberg T Reporting of myelotoxicity associated with emerging regimens for the treatment of selected solid tumors Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2012 81 2 136 150 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2011.03.003 21507676