4.0 Article

A novel hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization regimen, utilizing bortezomib and filgrastim, for patients undergoing autologous transplant

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL APHERESIS
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 559-563

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jca.21449

关键词

myeloma; lymphoma; hematopoietic; transplant; mobilization; bortezomib

资金

  1. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adequate hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) collection is critical for patients undergoing autologous HPC transplant (AHPCT). Historically, 15-30% of patients failed HPC mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone. Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, has been shown to down regulate very late antigen-4 (VLA-4), an adhesion molecule expressed on HPCs. In this pilot study, bortezomib was administered on days -11 and -8 at a dose of 1.3 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) or subcutaneously (SQ), followed by G-CSF 10 mcg/kg SQ, on days -4 to -1 prior to HPC collection (Day 1). Nineteen patients, with multiple myeloma (n=12) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=7) undergoing AHPCT for the first time, were enrolled. Patients were excluded if they had worse than grade II neuropathy or platelet count less than 100 x 10(9)/L. Bortezomib was well tolerated and all patients had adequate HPC collections with no mobilization failures. One patient (6%) had a CD34(+) cell count of 3.9 cells/mu L on Day 1 and received plerixafor per institutional algorithm. Eleven patients completed HPC collection in 1 day and eight in 2 days. All patients underwent AHPCT and had timely neutrophil and platelet engraftment. Comparison with a historical control group of 70 MM and lymphoma patients, who were mobilized with G-CSF, showed significantly higher CD 34+ cells/kg collected in the bortezomib mobilization study group. Bortezomib plus G-CSF is an effective HPC mobilizing regimen worth investigating further in subsequent studies. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:559-563, 2016. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据