Abstract
AbstractHigh-dose cyclophosphamide (HD-Cy) (3 g/m2) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a very effective regimen for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization. Unfortunately, it is associated with an increased risk of neutropenic fever (NF). We analyzed the effect of NF on PBSC apheresis results and the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of NF associated with HD-Cy plus G-CSF for PBSC mobilization in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). First, patients were divided into NF ( +) and NF ( −) groups according to whether they suffered from NF during mobilization. Second, we divided patients into an antibiotic prophylaxis group and a nonantibiotic prophylaxis group according to whether antibiotic prophylaxis was used during the mobilization period. Our study showed that NF( +) patients (n = 44) had lower CD34 + cell dose collection (median 2.60 versus 5.34 × 106/kg, P < 0.001) and slower neutrophil engraftment and platelet engraftment (median 11 versus 10 days, P = 0.002, and median 13 versus 11 days, P = 0.043, respectively) than NF( −) patients (n = 234). Of note, the nonantibiotic prophylaxis group patients (n = 30) had a 26.7% incidence of NF. In the patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis (n = 227), the incidence was reduced to 9.3% (P = 0.01). The antibiotic prophylaxis patients had higher CD34 + cell collection (median 5.41 versus 2.27 × 106/kg, P < 0.001) and lower hospitalization cost of mobilization ($ median 3108.02 versus 3702.39, p = 0.012). Thus, our results demonstrate that NF is associated with lower CD34 + cell collection and that antibiotic prophylaxis can reduce the incidence of NF and improve stem cell mobilization and collection outcomes, which reduces the hospitalization cost of mobilization.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference32 articles.
1. Mohty MK, Hübel N, Kröger M et al (2014) 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 49(7):865–872
2. Wang LH, Xiang YY, Deng Z et al (2021) Comparison of the efficiency, safety, and survival outcomes in two stem cell mobilization regimens with cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF or G-CSF alone in multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. Ann Hematol 100(2):563–573
3. Gojo I, Guo C, Sarkodee-Adoo C et al (2004) 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 34(1):69–76
4. Jantunen E, Putkonen M, Nousiainen T et al (2003) Low-dose or intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for progenitor cell mobilisation in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 31(5):347–351
5. Corso A, Arcaini L, Caberlon S et al (2002) A combination of dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin is less toxic and more effective than high-dose cyclophosphamide for peripheral stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 87(10):1041–1045