Efficacy and Toxicity of Cytarabine + G-CSF, Cyclophosphamide + G-CSF, and Plerixafor + G-CSF Mobilization of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Hematologic Malignancy Patients with Predicted Poor Collection

AIM. To compare the efficacy and toxicity of various regimens of autologous hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) mobilization (cytarabine + G-CSF, cyclophosphamide + G-CSF, and plerixafor + G-CSF) in hematologic malignancy patients with predicted poor HSC collection.

MATERIALS & METHODS. This retrospective study compared the results of autologous HSC mobilization in peripheral blood of 87 hematologic malignancy patients with predicted poor collection. Out of them, 36 patients received cytarabine 400 mg/m²/12 h IV on Day 1 and Day 2 combined with G-CSF 10 µg/kg SC from Day 5 to the last apheresis. In 18 patients, to mobilize autologous HSCs, cyclophosphamide 2–4 g/m² IV on Day 1 + G-CSF 10 µg/kg SC also from Day 5 were used. The third regimen of autologous HSC mobilization (n = 33) started with G-CSF 10 µg/kg/day SC on Days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and plerixafor 0.24 µg/kg/day SC was administered on Day 5. The analysis focused on the data from 27 classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), 44 non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and 16 multiple myeloma patients. The median age was 48, 33, and 55 years, respectively.

RESULTS. The median CD34+ cell collection was 8.1 × 10⁶/kg body mass in cytarabine + G-CSF recipients vs. 6.5 × 10⁶/kg in cyclophosphamide + G-CSF and 2.8 × 10⁶/kg in plerixafor + G-CSF recipients (p < 0.0001). Most common complications were thrombocytopenia grade 4 (in 44 % of cytarabine + G-CSF and 6 % of cyclophosphamide + G-CSF recipients; p = 0.004) and neutropenia grade 4 (in 42 % of cytarabine + G-CSF and 22 % of cyclophosphamide + G-CSF recipients; p = 0.23).

CONCLUSION. Cytarabine + G-CSF mobilization of autologous HSCs can well be considered to be an effective and safe regimen for cHL and NHL predicted poor mobilizers. This conclusion, however, does not apply, for a number of reasons, to plasma cell tumor patients. For this category, the determination of an optimal autologous HSC mobilization regimen still remains a highly relevant issue.

• Svetlana Sergeevna Elkhova NN Petrov National Medical Cancer Research Center, 68 Leningradskaya ul., pos. Pesochnyi, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197758 ; ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии им. Н.Н. Петрова» Минздрава России, ул. Ленинградская, д. 68, пос. Песочный, Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация, 197758 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1691-0549 (unauthenticated)
• L.V. Filatova NN Petrov National Medical Cancer Research Center, 68 Leningradskaya ul., pos. Pesochnyi, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197758 ; ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии им. Н.Н. Петрова» Минздрава России, ул. Ленинградская, д. 68, пос. Песочный, Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация, 197758 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0728-4582 (unauthenticated)
• I.S. Zyuzgin NN Petrov National Medical Cancer Research Center, 68 Leningradskaya ul., pos. Pesochnyi, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197758 ; ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии им. Н.Н. Петрова» Минздрава России, ул. Ленинградская, д. 68, пос. Песочный, Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация, 197758 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9597-4593 (unauthenticated)
• S.A. Volchenkov NN Petrov National Medical Cancer Research Center, 68 Leningradskaya ul., pos. Pesochnyi, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197758 ; ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии им. Н.Н. Петрова» Минздрава России, ул. Ленинградская, д. 68, пос. Песочный, Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация, 197758 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2463-2024 (unauthenticated)
• L.A. Kramynin NN Petrov National Medical Cancer Research Center, 68 Leningradskaya ul., pos. Pesochnyi, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197758 ; ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии им. Н.Н. Петрова» Минздрава России, ул. Ленинградская, д. 68, пос. Песочный, Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация, 197758 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4542-8353 (unauthenticated)
• T.Yu. Semiglazova NN Petrov National Medical Cancer Research Center, 68 Leningradskaya ul., pos. Pesochnyi, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197758; II Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University, 41 Kirochnaya ul., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191015 ; ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии им. Н.Н. Петрова» Минздрава России, ул. Ленинградская, д. 68, пос. Песочный, Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация, 197758; ФГБОУ ВО «Северо-Западный государственный медицинский университет им. И.И. Мечникова» Минздрава России, ул. Кирочная, д. 41, Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация, 191015 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4305-6691 (unauthenticated)

1. Mohty M, Azar N, Chabannon C, et al. Plerixafor in poor mobilizers with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a multi-center time-motion analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53(3):246–54. doi: 10.1038/s41409-017-0033-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-017-0033-0
2. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2011.82
3. Olivieri J, Attolico I, Nuccorini R, et al. Predicting failure of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization before it starts: the predicted poor mobilizer (pPM) score. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53(4):461–73. doi: 10.1038/s41409-017-0051-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-017-0051-y
4. Sureda A, Corbacioglu S, Greco R, et al. (eds.) The EBMT Handbook. Cham: Springer; 2024. pp. 151–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44080-9
5. DiPersio JF, Micallef IN, Stiff PJ, et al. Phase III prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of plerixafor plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor compared with placebo plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for autologous stem-cell mobilization and transplantation for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4767–73. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.7209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.20.7209
6. Jelinek T, Adamusova L, Popkova T, et al. Cytarabine + G-CSF is more effective than cyclophosphamide + G-CSF as a stem cell mobilization regimen in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54(7):1107–14. doi: 10.1038/s41409-018-0396-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-018-0396-x
7. Bogucka-Fedorczuk A, Czyz A, Kalicinska E, et al. Higher efficacy of intermediate dose cytarabine + G-CSF compared to cyclophosphamide + G-CSF in hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Apher. 2020;35(4):246–54. doi: 10.1002/jca.21784. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.21784
8. Czerw T, Sadus-Wojciechowska M, Michalak K, et al. Increased Efficacy of Stem Cell Chemomobilization with Intermediate-Dose Cytarabine Plus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Compared with G-CSF Alone in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: Results of a Randomized Trial. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25(2):248–55. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.09.023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.09.023
9. Luo C, Wu G, Huang X, et al. Efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2022;13(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s13287-022-02802-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-022-02802-6
10. Kruzel T, Sadus-Wojciechowska M, Najda J, et al. Very high efficacy of intermediate-dose cytarabine in combination with G-CSF as a second-line mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells. Int J Hematol. 2012;96(2):287–9. doi: 10.1007/s12185-012-1135-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12185-012-1135-5
11. Callera AF, Rosa ES, Callera F. Intermediate-dose cytarabine plus G-CSF as mobilization regimen for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and heavily pre-treated patients with hematological and non-hematological malignancies. Transfus Apher Sci. 2019;58(3):318–22. doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2019.03.018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2019.03.018
12. Giebel S, Kruzel T, Czerw T, et al. Intermediate-dose Ara-C plus G-CSF for stem cell mobilization in patients with lymphoid malignancies, including predicted poor mobilizers. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48(7):915–21. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2012.269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.269
13. Mohty M, Hubel K, Kroger N, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell mobilisation in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients: a position statement from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(7):865–72. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2014.39
14. Wuchter P, Ran D, Bruckner T, et al. Poor mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells-definitions, incidence, risk factors, and impact on outcome of autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16(4):490–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.11.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.11.012
15. Giebel S, Sadus-Wojciechowska M, Halaburda K, et al. Increased efficacy of intermediate-dose cytarabine + G-CSF compared to DHAP + G-CSF for stem cell mobilization in patients with lymphoma: an analysis by the Polish lymphoma research group. Ann Hematol. 2016;95(2):263–9. doi: 10.1007/s00277-015-2557-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-015-2557-y
16. Calderon-Cabrera C, Carmona Gonzalez M, Martin J, et al. Intermediate doses of cytarabine plus granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor as an effective and safe regimen for hematopoietic stem cell collection in lymphoma patients with prior mobilization failure. Transfusion. 2015;55(4):875–9. doi: 10.1111/trf.12906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.12906