Cancer treatment and research communications · 2026
Pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for chemo-mobilized stem cell collection in multiple myeloma: A retrospective real-world study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Zhang Yan-Lin, Qin Xin-Yi, Cao Chun, Luo Zhi-Ming, Zhang Ying, Zeng Han-Qing, Deng Jian-Chuan, Luo Yun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Achieving sufficient stem cell yield via effective mobilization promotes successful hematological reconstitution. However, clinical evidence regarding the comparative outcomes of pegfilgrastim (PEG) versus filgrastim (FIL) remains controversial, lacking regimen-specific comparisons.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and costs of PEG versus FIL in MM patients, and compare the impact of cyclophosphamide-based chemo-mobilization on these outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: This single-center retrospective study included 102 MM patients (PEG: n = 49; FIL: n = 53). Primary endpoints were CD34⁺ cell yield, mobilization success, duration, and time to engraftment. Statistical analyses included propensity score matching (PSM), overlap weighting (OW), and subgroup analysis.
RESULTS: In the overall cohort, PEG and FIL showed equivalent median CD34⁺ yields (3.90 vs. 4.99 × 10⁶/kg, P = 0.096), mobilization success rates, and total hospitalization costs (P = 0.53). FIL yielded a higher total mononuclear cell count (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed PEG reduced mobilization duration (10 vs. 15 days, P < 0.001) and sessions in chemo-mobilization. PSM showed comparable yields and engraftment. To address PSM sample attrition and balance covariates, OW was utilized, further confirming that PEG significantly shortened overall duration (P = 0.04) and reduced sessions (P = 0.02). Both regimens exhibited similar engraftment kinetics and safety.
CONCLUSION: Both PEG and FIL demonstrate equivalent efficacy for stem cell mobilization in MM. PEG offers superior efficiency by shortening duration and reducing sessions without increasing the total economic burden.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and costs of PEG versus FIL in MM patients, and compare the impact of cyclophosphamide-based chemo-mobilization on these outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: This single-center retrospective study included 102 MM patients (PEG: n = 49; FIL: n = 53). Primary endpoints were CD34⁺ cell yield, mobilization success, duration, and time to engraftment. Statistical analyses included propensity score matching (PSM), overlap weighting (OW), and subgroup analysis.
RESULTS: In the overall cohort, PEG and FIL showed equivalent median CD34⁺ yields (3.90 vs. 4.99 × 10⁶/kg, P = 0.096), mobilization success rates, and total hospitalization costs (P = 0.53). FIL yielded a higher total mononuclear cell count (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed PEG reduced mobilization duration (10 vs. 15 days, P < 0.001) and sessions in chemo-mobilization. PSM showed comparable yields and engraftment. To address PSM sample attrition and balance covariates, OW was utilized, further confirming that PEG significantly shortened overall duration (P = 0.04) and reduced sessions (P = 0.02). Both regimens exhibited similar engraftment kinetics and safety.
CONCLUSION: Both PEG and FIL demonstrate equivalent efficacy for stem cell mobilization in MM. PEG offers superior efficiency by shortening duration and reducing sessions without increasing the total economic burden.