Laboratory medicine · 2025
The effect of plerixafor on autologous stem cell mobilization, cell viability, and apheresis challenges.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Puzo Christian J, Li Philippa, Tormey Christopher A, Siddon Alexa J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of plerixafor for hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) mobilization prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (aSCT) for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and various lymphomas, using an oncologist-guided HSC collection goal and markers of cell viability.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all aSCT patients at Yale New Haven Hospital between 2017 and 2021 who met diagnostic criteria for MM, non-Hodgkin, or Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 382) was undertaken. Logistic regression evaluated plerixafor's effect on meeting the individual's HSC goal. The use of t-tests determined plerixafor's relationship to HSC yield and analysis of variance testing assessed its effect on cell viability.
RESULTS: Mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08; P < .05) relative to G-CSF alone was negatively associated with meeting the individual's HSC goal. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in patients mobilized with plerixafor yielded fewer HSCs than those without plerixafor (t = -2.78; P = .03). Mobilization regimen (P = .13) had no association with HSC viability. Mobilization failure with plerixafor was rare but occurred in patients with multiple risk factors, including exposure to several rounds of HSC-affecting chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Plerixafor is effective across multiple diagnoses using an oncologist-driven HSC collection endpoint. Its association with mobilization failure is likely attributable to its use in patients predicted to be poor mobilizers.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all aSCT patients at Yale New Haven Hospital between 2017 and 2021 who met diagnostic criteria for MM, non-Hodgkin, or Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 382) was undertaken. Logistic regression evaluated plerixafor's effect on meeting the individual's HSC goal. The use of t-tests determined plerixafor's relationship to HSC yield and analysis of variance testing assessed its effect on cell viability.
RESULTS: Mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08; P < .05) relative to G-CSF alone was negatively associated with meeting the individual's HSC goal. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in patients mobilized with plerixafor yielded fewer HSCs than those without plerixafor (t = -2.78; P = .03). Mobilization regimen (P = .13) had no association with HSC viability. Mobilization failure with plerixafor was rare but occurred in patients with multiple risk factors, including exposure to several rounds of HSC-affecting chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Plerixafor is effective across multiple diagnoses using an oncologist-driven HSC collection endpoint. Its association with mobilization failure is likely attributable to its use in patients predicted to be poor mobilizers.