English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

/Objective Plerixafor has been increasingly used in conjunction with G-CSF to increase mobilization of CD34+ stem cells in patients undergoing leukapheresis collection for autologous stem cell transplantation. While G- CSF and plerixafor have been shown to increase CD34+ counts, studies examining patients’ ability to meet collection goals for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have not been well documented. Methods/Case Report All autologous stem cell collection patients between 2017-2021 were retrospectively reviewed and categorized by primary diagnosis. Patients received a mobilization regimen of G-CSF alone, G-CSF and plerixafor, G-CSF and chemotherapy, or G-CSF, plerixafor, and chemotherapy. CD34+ stem cell collection results were recorded. All units of CD34+ stem cells were processed according to protocol and viability was assessed by Trypan blue method on a thawed aliquot 2 weeks after processing. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) 385 patients (271 MM, 41 DLBCL, 30 HL, and 43 NHL patients; male: 242; female: 143; age range: 16-78) were identified. Binomial logistic regression demonstrated that use of plerixafor with G- CSF was negatively associated with meeting CD34+ goal collection (OR= -1.57, p= 0.003) compared to G-CSF alone. This result was particularly true for MM patients (OR= -1.62, p= 0.014). A pairwise t-test indicated that patients receiving G-CSF and plerixafor had lower CD34+ cell viabilities (t= 2.21, p = 0.028); after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, MM samples also had significantly lower percentage viability than DLBCL (p= 0.003) or HL (p= 0.022) samples. Conclusion A higher percentage of patients mobilized on G-CSF alone were able to meet collection goal versus patients who were mobilized on G-CSF and plerixafor. Patients who received G-CSF and plerixafor had significantly lower viability than those who received G-CSF alone. We hypothesize these findings to be due to lower baseline mobilization for patients on G-CSF and plerixafor.

Single institution retrospective review of CD34+ apheresis collection based on mobilization regimen and primary diagnosis