2009
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2009.130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Safety and efficacy assessment of plerixafor in patients with multiple myeloma proven or predicted to be poor mobilizers, including assessment of tumor cell mobilization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
73
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
5
73
0
Order By: Relevance
“…13,21 When used concomitantly with growth factor, plerixafor improves the yield of CD34 þ collection, and has been shown to successfully mobilize CD34 þ cells in patients failing or likely to fail standard mobilization with growth factor or growth factor combined with chemotherapy. 36,37 In a recent phase 3 study, the addition of plerixafor on and beyond the 4th day of filgrastim administration reduced the number of apheresis days and increased the yield of CD34 þ cells mobilization in MM patients 18 when compared with filgrastim alone. Although upfront utilization of plerixafor is very effective, it also adds to the cost and complexity of mobilization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13,21 When used concomitantly with growth factor, plerixafor improves the yield of CD34 þ collection, and has been shown to successfully mobilize CD34 þ cells in patients failing or likely to fail standard mobilization with growth factor or growth factor combined with chemotherapy. 36,37 In a recent phase 3 study, the addition of plerixafor on and beyond the 4th day of filgrastim administration reduced the number of apheresis days and increased the yield of CD34 þ cells mobilization in MM patients 18 when compared with filgrastim alone. Although upfront utilization of plerixafor is very effective, it also adds to the cost and complexity of mobilization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…69,70 In clinical studies, mobilization with G-CSF plus plerixafor has not caused excessive tumour cell mobilization when compared with mobilization with G-CSF alone [71][72][73] There are no published data on tumour cell mobilization after CT plus G-CSF mobilization followed by plerixafor.…”
Section: Tumour Cell Contamination Of the Graftmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…20 In combination with G-CSF plerixafor mobilized significantly more CD34 þ HSC than G-CSF alone, 21 making it a valid option for those patients considered to be poor mobilizers. 22 Before approval by the European authorities, plerixafor was applied in a compassionate use program (CUP) open for patients who had previously failed a conventional mobilization regimen. This report evaluates the results of the German CUP with 60 proven poor mobilizers from 23 centers, who received plerixafor in combination with G-CSF with or without chemotherapy for at least 4 days, as well as plerixafor alone, or in combination with G-CSF for o4 days.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%