Utility of Plerixafor In Addition to Chemotherapy and G-CSF Mobilization Regimens
Authors: Awan Farrukh , Deremer David , Mebel Elaine , Kochuparambil Samith Thomas , Jillella Anand P. 
Published: October 2019

Abstract 4443

Introduction:

Various chemotherapeutic agents particularly cyclophosphamide (CY) are utilized in combination with growth factors in an attempt to increase the number of stem cells available for collection in the peripheral blood. Plerixafor (P) is a reversible antagonist of CXCR4 and interrupts its interaction with SDF-1. This results in a rapid release of hematopoietic stem cells from the marrow to the circulation. Recent pivotal phase III trial data has established the efficacy of P in combination with G-CSF (G) in patients who had failed prior attempts at stem cell collection. However, there is limited data about the utility of plerixafor in patients who are being mobilized with chemotherapy and G.

Method:

In this single institution study of uniformly treated patients we describe our experience with the use of P as a salvage option in patients who fail to optimally mobilize CD34+ cells (>5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg). Patients received CY (3-4 g/m2) followed by GCSF (10 mcg/kg) from day 1 to day 10. Thirteen patients (6 NHL, 4 MM, 2 Hodgkin lymphoma, 1 Ewings sarcoma) received salvage P from 2008–2010. Their outcomes were compared with 10 matched, historic controls mobilized with (CY n=8; CY + etoposide n=1; CY + topotecan n=1) plus G-CSF (10mcg/kg/d) identified from our institutional database. Data was collected on mobilization and transplant outcomes and analyzed utilizing SPSS version 13.0. Patients receiving P were closely matched to historic controls (CY+G).

Result:

Both groups were similar with regards to age, gender, disease type, prior therapies and performance status (p>0.05 for all). Patients in the P arm received a median of 2.5 doses (range 1–8). The mean CD34+ count was 21.5cells/ul in the P arm and 32.5 cells/ul in the CY+G arm (p=0.2). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in the average number of apheresis sessions in the P vs. CY+G arms (4.2 vs. 4.4, p=0.8) or the total number of CD34+ stem cells collected (4.0×106/kg vs. 3.9×106/kg, p=0.9). However, 7 out of the 13 patients who received P did have an increase of >10 CD34+ cells/ul in their peripheral blood. Utilizing a cut-off of 5×106 CD34+/kg, 3 (23%) patients in the P arm and 3 (30%) patients in the CY+G arm had a successful harvest. Three NHL patients required >4 doses of P, but all eventually collected >2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment dynamics were similar in both groups of patients. Median time to neutrophil engraftment was 10 days for both groups, p=0.8, and to platelet engraftment was 22 days vs. 20.5 days, p=0.1, respectively for P vs. CY+G.

Conclusion:

Our limited single-center retrospective case-controlled outcomes data, suggests that when compared with CY+G, the addition of P as a salvage agent does not significantly improve mobilization outcomes. Further evaluation is needed to combine P with CY+G in terms of optimal timing and potentially dosing of chemotherapy agents utilized. We suggest that the combination P+G would provide better potential outcomes such as improved collection and less hospitalization and reduce the use of chemo-mobilization prior to an Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant.

Disclosures:

No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.