Hematopoietic Stem Cell Collection in Multiple Myeloma Patients: Influence of the Lenalidomide-Based Therapy and Mobilization Regimen Prior to Auto-HSCT

II Kostroma, AA Zhernyakova, ZhV Chubukina, IM Zapreeva, SA Tiranova, AV Sel’tser, NYu Semenova, SS Bessmel’tsev, AV Chechetkin, SV Gritsaev

Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024

For correspondence: Ivan Ivanovich Kostroma, MD, PhD, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024; Теl.: +7(921)784-82-82; e-mail: obex@rambler.ru

For citation: Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, Chubukina ZhV, et al. Hematopoietic Stem Cell Collection in Multiple Myeloma Patients: Influence of the Lenalidomide-Based Therapy and Mobilization Regimen Prior to Auto-HSCT. Clinical oncohematology. 2018;11(2):192–7.

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-2-192-197


ABSTRACT

Background. A prompt graft acceptance is essential for positive autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) outcome in multiple myeloma patients (MM). Prompt and favourable hematopoietic regeneration is associated with CD34+ cell count in a transplant. Although the indicators of low autotransplant cellularity have been defined, the practical application of new drug products and HSC mobilization regimens strengthens the relevance of determining their influence on the transplant quality.

Aim. To determine the factors that are associated with low efficacy of auto-HSCT in MM patients and to evaluate the impact of lenalidomide during induction period and of vinorelbine as a mobilization regimen on the prognosis.

Materials & Methods. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of autotransplant collection results in 68 MM patients treated with two mobilization regimens: 3 g/m2 cyclophosphamide with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and 30 mg/m2 vinorelbine with G-CSF. Mobilization was aimed at collecting not less than 2–4 × 106 CD34+ cells per kg body mass. CD34+ cell count was determined by four-color analysis on the Cytomics FC 500 laser flow cytometer.

Results. The analysis showed that age or MM immunochemical specificity were not associated with CD34+ cell count in the transplant. Prior lenalidomide treatment compared to therapy without immunomodulators (4.1 × 106/kg vs. 7.76 × 106/kg) tends to decrease CD34+ count (р = 0.066). Cyclophosphamide included into mobilization regimen compared to vinorelbine (3.96 × 106/kg vs. 6.8 × 106/kg) significantly increased CD34+ cell count (р = 0.022).

Conclusion. The decrease of CD34+ cell count in the autotransplant of the MM patients treated with lenalidomide prior to auto-HSC collection, and a lower mobilization activity of vinorelbine provide a basis for a differentiated selection of mobilization regimens. Vinorelbine may be administered to patients with a single auto-HSCT, i.e. elderly people and patients with complete response. In case of substantial lenalidomide treatment prior to auto-HSCT, intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide is preferred.

Keywords: auto-HSCT, multiple myeloma, mobilization regimen, cyclophosphamide, vinorelbine, lenalidomide, predictors.

Received: November 29, 2017

Accepted: February 9, 2018

Read in PDF 

REFERENCES

  1. Бессмельцев С.С., Абдулкадыров К.М. Множественная миелома: руководство для врачей. М.: МК, 2016. 504 с.[Bessmel’tsev SS, Abdulkadyrov KM. Mnozhestvennaya mieloma: rukovodstvo dlya vrachei. (Multiple myeloma: manual for physicians.) Moscow: MK Publ.; 2016. 504 p. (In Russ)]
  2. Менделеева Л.П., Вотякова О.М., Покровская О.С. и др. Национальные клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению множественной миеломы. Гематология и трансфузиология. 2016;61(1, прил. 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1(Прил.2).[Mendeleeva OP, Votyakova OM, Pokrovskaya OS, et al. National clinical recommendations in diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya. 2016;61(1, Suppl. 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1(Прил.2). (In Russ)]
  3. Bender JG, To LB, Williams S, Schwartzberg LS. Defining a therapeutic dose of peripheral blood stem cells. J Hematother. 1992;1(4):329–41. doi: 10.1089/scd.1.1992.1.329.
  4. Olivieri A, Offidani M, Montanari M, et al. Factors affecting hemopoietic recovery after high-dose therapy and autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation: a single center experience. 1998;83(4):329–37.
  5. Nakasone H, Kanda Y, Ueda T, et al. Retrospective comparison of mobilization methods for autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2009;84(12):809–14. doi: 1002/ajh.21552.
  6. Stiff PJ, Micalef I, Nademanee AP, et al. Transplanted CD34+ cell dose associated with long-term platelet count recovery following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17(8):1146–53. doi: 1016/j.bbmt.2010.11.021.
  7. Hamadani M, Kochuparambil T, Osman S, et al. Intermediate-dose versus low-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma treated with novel induction therapies. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(7):1128–35. doi: 1016/j.bbmt.2012.01.005.
  8. Грицаев С.В., Кузяева А.А., Волошин С.В. и др. Заготовка трансплантата для аутологичной трансплантации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток онкогематологическим больным: частота и причины неудачных сборов. Русский медицинский журнал. 2013;1:30–[Gritsaev SV, Kuzyaeva AA, Voloshin SV, et al. Transplant collection for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with oncohematological diseases: frequency and reasons for poor mobilization. Russkii meditsinskii zhurnal. 2013;1:30–5. (In Russ)]
  9. Stockerl-Goldstein KE, Reddy SA, Horning SF, et al. Favorable treatment outcome in nonHodgkin’s lymphoma patients with ‘poor’ mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2000;6(5):506–12. doi: 1016/s1083-8791(00)70021-8.
  10. Watts MJ, Ings SJ, Flynn M, et al. Remobilization of patients who fail to achieve minimal progenitor thresholds at the first attempt is clinically worthwhile. Br J Haematol. 2000;111(1):287–91. doi: 1111/j.1365-2141.2000.02346.x.
  11. Sugrue MW, Williams K, Pollock BH, et al. Characterization and outcome of ‘hard to mobilize’ lymphoma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Leuk Lymphoma. 2000;39(5–6):509–19. doi: 3109/10428190009113381.
  12. Грицаев С.В., Кузяева А.А., Бессмельцев С.С. Отдельные аспекты аутологичной трансплантации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток при множественной миеломе. Клиническая онкогематология. 2017;10(1):7–12. doi: 21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12.[Gritsaev SV, Kuzyaeva AA, Bessmel’tsev SS. Certain Aspects of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Clinical oncohematology. 2017;10(1):7–12. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12. (In Russ)]
  13. Down JD, Boudewijn A, Dillingh JH, et al. Relationships between ablation of distinct haematopoietic cell subsets and the development of donor bone marrow engraftment following recipient pretreatment with different alkylating drugs. Br J 1994;70(4):611–6. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1994.359.
  14. Lokhorst HM, Sonneveld P, Wijermans PW, et al. Intermediate-dose melphalan (IDM) combined with G-CSF (filgrastim) is an effective and safe induction therapy for autologous stem cells in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 1996;92(1):44–8. doi: 1046/j.1365-2141.1996.00306.x.
  15. Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, et al. Impact of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell mobilization and engraftment post-peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Leukemia. 2007;21(9):2035– doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404801.
  16. Mazumder A, Kaufman J, Niesvizky R, et al. Effect of lenalidomide therapy on mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia. 2008;22(6):1280–1. doi: 1038/sj.leu.2405035.
  17. Mark T, Stern J, Furst JR, et al. Stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide overcomes the suppressive effect of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell collection in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(7):795–8. doi: 1016/j.bbmt.2008.04.008.
  18. Popat U, Saliba R, Thandi R, et al. Impairment of filgrastim-induced stem cell mobilization after prior lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(6):718–23. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.02.011.
  19. Nazha A, Cook R, Vogl DT, et al. Stem cell collection in patients with multiple myeloma: impact of induction therapy and mobilization regimen. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(1):59– doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.63.
  20. Cavallo F, Bringhen S, Milone G, et al. Stem cell mobilization in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma after lenalidomide induction therapy. Leukemia. 2011;25(10):1627–31. doi: 10.1038/leu.2011.131.
  21. Bhutani D, Zonder J, Valent J, et al. Evaluating the effects of lenalidomide induction therapy on peripheral stem cells collection in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma. Supp Care Cancer. 2013;21(9):2437–42. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1808-5.
  22. Elliot C, Samson DM, Armitage S, et al. When harvest peripheral blood stem cells after mobilization therapy: prediction of CD34-positive cell yield by preceding day CD34-positive concentration in peripheral blood. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(3):970–3. doi: 1200/JCO.1996.14.3.970.
  23. Remes K, Matinlauri I, Grenman S, et al. Daily measurements of blood CD34+ cells after stem cell mobilization predict stem cell yield and post-transplant hematopoietic recovery. J Hematother. 1997;6(1):13–9. doi: 10.1089/scd.1.1997.6.13.
  24. Knudsen LM, Gaarsdal E, Jensen L, et al. Evaluation of mobilized CD34+ cell counts to guide timing and yield of large-scale collection by leukapheresis. J Hematother. 1998;7(1):45–52. doi: 10.1089/scd.1.1998.7.45.
  25. Corso A, Caberlon S, Pagnucco G, et al. Blood stem cell collections in multiple myeloma: definition of a scoring system. Bone Marrow Transplantat. 2000;26(3):283–6. doi: 1038/sj.bmt.1702514.
  26. Perea G, Sureda A, Martino R, et al. Predictive factors for a successful mobilization of peripheral blood CD34+ cells in multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2001;80(10):592–7. doi: 1007/s002770100351.
  27. Gojo I, Guo C, Sarkodee-Adoo C, et al. High dose cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide for mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in patients with multiple myeloma: efficacy and toxicity. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;34(1):69–76. doi: 1038/sj.bmt.1704529.
  28. Гальцева И.В., Давыдова Ю.О., Гапонова Т.В. и др. Абсолютное количество гемопоэтических стволовых клеток CD34+ в периферической крови перед процедурой лейкоцитафереза как параметр, прогнозирующий эффективность сбора стволовых клеток. Терапевтический архив. 2017;89(7):18–24. doi: 17116/terarkh201789718-24.[Gal’tseva IV, Davydova YuO, Gaponova TV, et al. Absolute numbers of peripheral blood CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells prior to a leukapheresis procedure as a parameter predicting the efficiency of stem cell collection. Terapevticheskii arkhiv. 2017;89(7):18–24. doi: 10.17116/terarkh201789718-24. (In Russ)]
  29. Fu P, Bagai RK, Meyerson H, et al. Pre-mobilization therapy blood CD34+ cell count predicts the likelihood of successful hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2006;38(3):189–96. doi: 1038/sj.bmt.1705431.
  30. Pusic I, Jiang SY, Landua S, et al. Impact of mobilization and remobilization strategies on achieving sufficient stem cell yields for autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(9):1045–56. doi: 1016/j.bbmt.2008.07.004.
  31. Ozsan GH, Micallef IN, Dispenzieri A, et al. Hematopoietic recovery kinetics predicts for poor CD34+ cell mobilization after cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2012;87(1):1–4. doi: 10.1002/ajh.22179.
  32. Duarte RF, Shaw BE, Marin P, et al. Plerixafor plus granulocyte CSF can mobilize hematopoietic stem cells from multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients failing previous mobilization attempts: EU compassionate use data. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(1):52–8. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.54.
  33. Fruehauf S, Ehninger G, Hubel K, et al. Mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells for autologous transplant in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients by plerixafor and G-CSF and detection of tumor cell mobilization by PCR in multiple myeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(2):269–75. doi: 1038/bmt.2009.142.

Certain Aspects of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

SV Gritsaev, AA Kuzyaeva, SS Bessmel’tsev

Russian Scientific Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology under the Federal Medico-Biological Agency, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024

For correspondence: Sergei Vasil’evich Gritsaev, DSci, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024; Tel: +7(812)717-58-57; e-mail: gritsaevsv@mail.ru

For citation: Gritsaev SV, Kuzyaeva AA, Bessmel’tsev SS. Certain Aspects of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Clinical oncohematology. 2017;10(1):7–12 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12


ABSTRACT

The review dwells on certain problems of mobilization and conditioning regimens, as well as autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in patients with multiple myeloma. The aim of the review is to determine new approaches to improve the effectiveness of the auto-HSCT.

Keywords: multiple myeloma, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, mobilization regimen, conditioning regimen.

Received: July 13, 2016

Accepted: November 12, 2016

Read in PDF (RUS)pdficon


REFERENCES

  1. Бессмельцев С.С., Абдулкадыров К.М. Множественная миелома: руководство для врачей. М.: МК, 2016. 504 с. [Bessmel’tsev SS, Abdulkadyrov KM. Mnozhestvennaya mieloma: rukovodstvo dlya vrachei. (Multiple myeloma: manual for physicians.) Moscow: MK Publ.; 2016. 504 p. (In Russ)]
  2. Менделеева Л.П., Вотякова О.М., Покровская О.С. и др. Национальные рекомендации по диагностике и лечению множественной миеломы. Гематология и трансфузиология. 2014;1(Приложение № 3):1–24. [Mendeleeva LP, Votyakova OM, Pokrovskaya OS, et al. National guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya. 2014;1(Suppl 3):1–24. (In Russ)]
  3. Reece DE. Management of multiple myeloma: The changing landscape. Blood Rev. 2007;21(6):301–14. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2007.07.001.
  4. Cavo M, Tosi P, Zamagni E, et al. Prospective, randomized study of single compared with double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Bologna 96 clinical study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(17):2434–41. doi: 10.1200/jco.2006.10.2509.
  5. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Facon T, et al. Single versus double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(26):2495–502. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa032290.
  6. Allan DS, Keeney M, Howson-Jan K, et al. Number of viable CD34(+) cells reinfused predicts engraftment in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;29(12):967–72. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703575.
  7. Michaelis LC, Saad A, Zhong X, et al. Salvage second hematopoietic cell transplantation in myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(5):760–6. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.01.004.
  8. Cook G, Williams C, Brown JM, et al. 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(14):874–85. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70245-1.
  9. Musto P, Simeon V, Grossi A, et al. Predicting poor peripheral blood stem cell collection in patients with multiple myeloma receiving pre-transplant induction therapy with novel agents and mobilized with cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor: results from a Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell’Adulto Multiple Myeloma Working Party study. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015;6:64. doi: 10.1186/s13287-015-0033-1.
  10. Olivieri A, Marchetti M, Lemoli R, et al. Proposed definition of “poor mobilizer” in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: an analytic hierarchy process by ad hoc working group Gruppo ItalianoTrapianto di Midollo Osseo. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(3):342–51. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2011.82.
  11. To LB, Levesque JP, Herbert KE. How I treat patients who mobilize hematopoietic stem cells poorly. Blood. 2011;118(17):4530–40. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-318220.
  12. Gertz MA. Current status of stem cell mobilization. Br J Haematol. 2010;150(6):647–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08313.x.
  13. Popat U, Saliba R, Thandi R, et al. Impairment of filgrastim induced stem cell mobilization after prior lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(6):718–23. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.02.011.
  14. Mazumder A, Kaufman J., Niesvizky R, et al. Effect of lenalidomide therapy on mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients (letter). Leukemia. 2008;22(60):1280–1. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2405035.
  15. Giralt S, Costa L, Schriber J, et al. Optimizing autologous stem cell mobilization strategies to improve patient outcomes: consensus guidelines and recommendations. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(3):295–308. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.10.013.
  16. Duong HK, Savani BN, Copelan E, et al. Peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization for autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: guidelines from the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(9):1262–73. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.05.003.
  17. Sung AD, Grima DT, Bernard LM, et al. Outcomes and costs of autologous stem cell mobilization with chemotherapy plus G-CSF vs G-CSF alone. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(11):1444–9. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2013.80.
  18. Gertz MA, Kumar SK, Lacy MQ, et al. Comparison of high-dose CY and growth factor with growth factor alone for mobilization of stem cells for transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43(8):619–25. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2008.369.
  19. Arora M, Burns LJ, Barker JN, et al. Randomized comparison of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor plus intensive chemotherapy for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2004;10(6):395–404. doi: 10.1016/s1083-8791(04)00068-0.
  20. Nakasone H, Kanda Y, Ueda T, et al. Retrospective comparison of mobilization methods for autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2009;84(12):809–14. doi: 10.1002/ajh.21552.
  21. Mark T, Stern J, Furst JR, et al. Stem cell mobilization with cyclophosphamide overcomes the suppressive effect of lenalidomide therapy on stem cell collection in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(7):795–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.04.008.
  22. Costa LJ, Miller AN, Alexander ET, et al. Growth factor and patient-adapted use of plerixafor is superior to CY and growth factor for autologous hematopoietic stem cells mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(4):523–8. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.170.
  23. DiPersio J., Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A, et al. Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;113(23):5720–6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-08-174946.
  24. Покровская О.С. Механизм действия и клиническая эффективность антагониста хемокинового рецептора CXCR4 плериксафора при мобилизации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток. Клиническая онкогематология. 2012;5(4):371–9. [Pokrovskaya OS. Mechanism of action and clinical activity of CXCR4 antagonist Plerixafor in stem cell mobilization. Klinicheskaya onkogematologiya. 2012;5(4):371–9. (In Russ)]
  25. Кучер М.А., Моталкина М.С., Климова О.У. и др. Плериксафор у пациентов со сниженной мобилизационной способностью аутологичных гемопоэтических стволовых клеток. Клиническая онкогематология. 2016;9(2):155–61. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2016-9-2-155-61. [Kucher MA, Motalkina MS, Klimova OU, et al. Plerixafor in Patients with Decreased Mobilizing Ability of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cells. Clinical oncohematology. 2016;9(2):155–61. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2016-9-2-155-61. (In Russ)]
  26. Levesque JP, Takamatsu Y, Nilsson SK, et al. Vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (CD106) is cleaved by neutrophil proteases in the bone marrow following hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Blood. 2001;98(5):1289–97. doi: 10.1182/blood.V98.5.1289.
  27. Levesque JP, Hendy J, Takamatsu Y, et al. Disruption of the CXCR4/CXCL12 chemotactic interaction during hematopoietic stem cell mobilization induced by GCSF or cyclophosphamide. J Clin Invest. 2003;111(2):187–96. doi: 10.1172/jci15994.
  28. Petit I, Szyper-Kravitz M, Nagler A, et al. G-CSF induces stem cell mobilization by decreasing bone marrow SDF-1 and upregulating CXCR4. Nat Immunol. 2002;3(7):687–94. doi: 10.1038/ni813.
  29. Cesana C, Carlo-Stella C, Regazzi E, et al. CD34+ cells mobilized by cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colonystimulating factor (G-CSF) are functionally different from CD34+ cells mobilized by G-CSF. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998;21(6):561–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1701133.
  30. Bruns I, Steidl U, Fischer JC, et al. Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor mobilizes CD34+ cells with different stem and progenitor subsets and distinct functional properties in comparison with unconjugated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Haematologica. 2008;93(3):347–55. doi: 10.3324/haematol.12081.
  31. Kim MG, Han N, Lee EK, Kim T. Pegfilgrastim vs filgrastim in PBSC mobilization for autologous hematopoietic SCT: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(4):523–30. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.297.
  32. Tuchman SA, Bacon WA, Huang LW, et al. Cyclophosphamide-based hematopoietic stem cell mobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J Clin Apher. 2015;30(3):176–82. doi: 10.1002/jca.21360.
  33. Dingli D, Nowakowski GS, Dispenzieri A, et al. Cyclophosphamide mobilization does not improve outcome in patients receiving stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma. 2006;6(5):384–8. doi: 10.3816/clm.2006.n.014.
  34. Hamadani M, Kochuparambil ST, Osman S, et al. Intermediate-dose versus low-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma treated with novel induction therapies. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(7):1128–35. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.01.005.
  35. Hiwase DK, Bollard G, Hiwase S. Intermediate-dose CY and G-CSF more efficiently mobilize adequate numbers of PBSC for tandem autologous PBSC transplantation compared with low-dose CY in patients with multiple myeloma. Cytotherapy. 2007;9(6):539–47. doi: 10.1080/14653240701452800.
  36. Jantunen E, Putkonen M, Nousiainen T, Low-dose or intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colonystimulating factor for progenitor cell mobilisation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003; 31(5):347–51. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703840.
  37. Nazha A, Cook R, Vogl DT, et al. Stem cell collection in patients with multiple myeloma: impact of induction therapy and mobilization regimen. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(1):59–63. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.63.
  38. Brioli A, Perrone G, Patriarca F, et al. Successful mobilization of PBSCs predicts favorable outcomes in multiple myeloma patients treated with novel agents and autologous transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(5):673–8. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.322.
  39. Samaras P, Pfrommer S, Seifert B, et al. Efficacy of vinorelbine plus granulocyte colonye-stimulation factor for CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(1):74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.09.020.
  40. Heizmann M, O’Meara AC, Moosmann PR, et al. Efficient mobilization of PBSC with vinorelbine/G-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;44(2):75–9. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2008.434.
  41. Annunziata M, Celentano M, Pocali B, et al. Vinorelbine plus intermediate dose cyclophosphamide is an effective and safe regimen for the mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2006;85(6):394–9. doi: 10.1007/s00277-005-0058-0.
  42. Bargetzi MJ, Passweg J, Baertschi E, et al. Mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells with vinorelbine and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in multiple myeloma patients is reliable and cost effective. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;31(2):99–103. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703787.
  43. Schmid A, Friess D, Taleghani BM, et al. Role of plerixafor in autologous stem cell mobilization with vinorelbine chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in patients with myeloma: a phase II study (PAV-trial). Leuk Lymphoma. 2015;56(3):608–14. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2014.927454.
  44. Moreau P, Facon T, Attal M, et al. Comparison of 200 mg/m2 melphalan and 8 Gy total body irradiation plus 140 mg/m2 melphalan as conditioning regimens for peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final analysis of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome 9502 randomized trial. Blood. 2002;99(3):731–5. doi: 10.1182/blood.v99.3.731.
  45. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Bruno B, et al. 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):1873–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-08-301085.
  46. Giralt S. 200mg/m2 melphalan – the gold standard for multiple myeloma. Nat Rev. 2010;7(9):490–1. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.104.
  47. Philips GL, Meisenberg BR, Reece DE, et al. Activity of single-agent melphalan 220 to 300 mg/m2 with amifostine cytoprotection and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support in non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;33(8):781–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1704424.
  48. Moreau P, Milpied N, Mahe B. Melphalan 220 mg/m2 followed by peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in 27 patients with advanced multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999;23(10):1003–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1701763.
  49. Reece D., Song K., Leblanc R., et al. Efficacy and safety of busulfan-based conditioning regimens for multiple myeloma. Oncologist. 2013;18:611–8. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0384.
  50. Roussel M, Moreau P, Huynh A, et al. Bortezomib ad high-dose melphalan as conditioning regimen before autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with de novo multiple myeloma: a phase 2 study of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM). Blood. 2010;115(1):32–7. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-06-229658.
  51. Nishihori T, Alekshun TJ, Shain K, et al. Bortezomib salvage followed by a phase I/II study of bortezomib plus high-dose melphalan and tandem autologous transplantation for patients with primary resistant myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2012;157(5):553–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09099.x.
  52. Huang W, Li J, Li H, et al. High-dose melphalan with bortezomib as conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplant in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who exhibited at least very good partial response to bortezomib-based induction therapy. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53(12):2507–10. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2012.685735.
  53. Mark TM, Reid W, Niesvizky R, et al. A phase 1 study of bendamustine and melphalan conditioning for autologous stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(5):831–7. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2012.685735.
  54. Martino M, Tripepi G, Messina G, et al. A phase II, single-arm, prospective study of bendamustine plus melphalan conditioning for second autologous stem cell transplantation in de novo multiple myeloma patients through a tandem transplant strategy. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(9):1197–203. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2016.94.
  55. Visani G, Malerba L, Stefani PM, et al. BeEAM (bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) before autologous stem cell transplantation is safe and effective for resistant/relapsed lymphoma patients. Blood. 2011;118(12):3419–25. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-351924.
  56. Veeraputhiran M, Jain T, Deol A, et al. BEAM conditioning regimen has higher toxicity compared with high-dose melphalan for salvage autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Clin Lymph Myeloma Leuk. 2015;15(9):531–5. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2015.05.008.
  57. Abu Zaid B, Abdul-Hai A, Grotto I, et al. Autologous transplant in multiple myeloma with an augmented conditioning protocol. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54(11):2480–4. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2013.782608.
  58. Musso M, Messina G, Marcacci G, et al. High-dose melphalan plus thiotepa as conditioning regimen before second autologous stem cell transplantation for “de novo” multiple myeloma patients: a phase II study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(11):1932–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.06.011.