G-CSF

Stable Chronology of Granulopoiesis under R(G)-DHAP Immunochemotherapy-Induced Cytotoxic Stress in Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas

AUTOIMMUNE THROMBOCYTOPENIA , , , ,

In memory of Academician A.I. Vorob’ev,
Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences

KA Sychevskaya, SK Kravchenko, FE Babaeva, AE Misyurina, AM Kremenetskaya, AI Vorob’ev

National Research Center for Hematology, 4 Novyi Zykovskii pr-d, Moscow, Russian Federation, 125167

For correspondence: Kseniya Andreevna Sychevskaya, 4 Novyi Zykovskii pr-d, Moscow, Russian Federation, 125167; Tel.: +7(910)409-79-44; e-mail: sychevskaya-ka@yandex.ru

For citation: Sychevskaya KA, Kravchenko SK, Babaeva FE, et al. Stable Chronology of Granulopoiesis under R(G)-DHAP Immunochemotherapy-Induced Cytotoxic Stress in Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas. Clinical oncohematology. 2021;14(2):204–19. (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2021-14-2-204-219

ABSTRACT

Background. Chronology of granulopoiesis based on periodic hematopoiesis model has been thoroughly studied. However, the pattern of influence of chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-induced cytotoxic stress on the development rhythm of a stem cell requires further investigation. The interaction of antitumor drugs with normal hematopoietic cells is relevant for assessing the intensity of chemotherapy adverse events. Besides, there is a demand for studying hematopoiesis under cytotoxic stress to predict immunological reactivity as a condition for efficacy of immunotherapeutic agents, the effect of which is based on cell immunity.

Aim. To study the chronological pattern of leukocyte count dynamics after R(G)-DHAP immunochemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas.

Materials & Methods. The dynamics of leukocyte count changes after R(G)-DHAP immunochemotherapy was analyzed using the data of 39 treatment courses in 19 non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas patients. After 18 out of 39 cycles of treatment granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered to prevent granulocytopenia, in other cases the previously planned hematopoietic stem cell mobilization was performed according to the accepted protocol.

Results. Time to activation of spontaneous granulopoiesis depends neither on G-CSF stimulation, nor on the total dose of growth-stimulating factor and corresponds on average to Day 10 or Day 11 of the break from the last day of immunochemotherapy. The tendency of shorter agranulocytosis duration on prophylactic use of G-CSF is associated with transient hyperleukocytosis at an early stage after completing immunochemotherapy. Regimens with platinum-based drugs, like R(G)-DHAP, are suggested to be combined with immunochemotherapeutic agents in patients with the failure of first-line chemotherapy. The time interval preceding myelopoiesis activation within the first days of the break between the courses is likely to contribute to the initiation of treatment with immunotherapeutic drugs after second-line chemotherapy.

Conclusion. The determination of granulopoiesis dynamics under R(G)-DHAP immunochemotherapy-induced cytotoxic stress enables to plan the optimum G-CSF regimen and to predict the optimum timing of immune antitumor effect combined with chemotherapy.

Keywords: periodic hematopoiesis, mathematical hematopoiesis model, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, G-CSF, antitumor immunity, R(G)-DHAP.

Received: November 15, 2020

Accepted: February 25, 2021

Read in PDF

Статистика Plumx английский

REFERENCES

  1. Foley C, Mackey MC. Dynamic hematological disease: a review. J Math Biol. 2009;58(1–2):285–322. doi: 10.1007/s00285-008-0165-3.
  2. Morley AA. A neutrophil cycle in healthy individuals. Lancet. 1966;2(7475):1220–2. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(66)92303-8.
  3. Mackey MC, Glass L. Oscillation and chaos in physiological control systems. Science. 1977;197(4300):287–9. doi: 10.1126/science.267326.
  4. Mackey Cell kinetic status of haematopoietic stem cells. Cell Prolif. 2001;34(2):71–83. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2184.2001.00195.x.
  5. Pujo-Menjouet L, Mackey MC. Contribution to the study of periodic chronic myelogenous leukemia. Compt Rend Biol. 2004;327(3):235–44. doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2003.05.004.
  6. Schirm S, Engel C, Loeffler M, Scholz M. Modelling chemotherapy effects on granulopoiesis. BMC Syst Biol. 2014;8(1):138. doi: 10.1186/s12918-014-0138-7.
  7. Dale DC, Bolyard AA, Aprikyan A. Cyclic neutropenia. Semin Hematol. 2002;39(2):89–94. doi: 10.1053/shem.2002.31917.
  8. Levy EJ, Schetman D. Cyclic neutropenia. Arch Dermatol. 1961;84(3):429–33. doi: 10.1001/archderm.1961.01580150075012.
  9. Colijn C, Mackey MC. A mathematical model of hematopoiesis: II. Cyclical neutropenia. J Theor Biol. 2005;237(2):133–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.03.034.
  10. Horwitz M, Benson KF, Person RE, et al. Mutations in ELA2, encoding neutrophil elastase, define a 21-day biological clock in cyclic haematopoiesis. Nat Genet. 1999;23(4):433–6. doi: 10.1038/70544.
  11. Aprikyan AA, Liles WC, Rodger E, et al. Impaired survival of bone marrow hematopoietic progenitor cells in cyclic neutropenia. Blood. 2001;97(1):147–53. doi: 10.1182/blood.v97.1.147.
  12. Horwitz MS, Corey SJ, Grimes HL, Tidwell T. ELANE mutations in cyclic and severe congenital neutropenia: genetics and pathophysiology. Hematol Oncol Clin N Am. 2013;27(1):19-vii. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2012.10.004.
  13. Welte K, Zeidler C, Dale DC. Severe congenital neutropenia. Semin Hematol. 2006;43(3):189–95. doi: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2006.04.004.
  14. Haurie C, Dale DC, Rudnicki R, Mackey MC. Modeling complex neutrophil dynamics in the grey collie. J Theor Biol. 2000;204(4):505–19. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.2034.
  15. Horwitz MS, Duan Z, Korkmaz B, et al. Neutrophil elastase in cyclic and severe congenital neutropenia. Blood. 2007;109(5):1817–24. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-08-019166.
  16. Go RS. Idiopathic cyclic thrombocytopenia. Blood Rev. 2005;19(1):53–9. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2004.05.001.
  17. Zhuge C, Mackey MC, Lei J. Origins of oscillation patterns in cyclical thrombocytopenia. J Theor Biol. 2019;462:432–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.11.024.
  18. Apostu R, Mackey MC. Understanding cyclical thrombocytopenia: a mathematical modeling approach. J Theor Biol. 2008;251(2):297–316. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.11.029.
  19. Colijn C, Mackey MC. A mathematical model of hematopoiesis–I. Periodic chronic myelogenous leukemia. J Theor Biol. 2005;237(2):117–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.03.033.
  20. Fortin P, Mackey MC. Periodic chronic myelogenous leukaemia: spectral analysis of blood cell counts and aetiological implications. Br J Haematol. 1999;104(2):336–45. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1999.01168.x.
  21. Morley A, Stohlman F Jr. Cyclophosphamide-induced cyclical neutropenia. An animal model of a human periodic disease. N Engl J Med. 1970;282(12):643–6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197003192821202.
  22. Kennedy Cyclic leukocyte oscillations in chronic myelogenous leukemia during hydroxyurea therapy. Blood. 1970;35(6):751–60. doi: 10.1182/blood.v35.6.751.751.
  23. Zhuge C, Lei J, Mackey MC. Neutrophil dynamics in response to chemotherapy and G-CSF. J Theor Biol. 2012;293:111–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.10.017.
  24. Price TH, Chatta GS, Dale DC. Effect of recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on neutrophil kinetics in normal young and elderly humans. Blood. 1996;88(1):335–40. doi: 10.1182/blood.V88.1.335.335.
  25. Chatta GS, Price TH, Allen RC, Dale DC. Effects of in vivo recombinant methionyl human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on the neutrophil response and peripheral blood colony-forming cells in healthy young and elderly adult volunteers. Blood. 1994;84(9):2923–9. doi: 10.1182/blood.V84.9.2923.2923.
  26. Dancey JT, Deubelbeiss KA, Harker LA, Finch CA. Neutrophil kinetics in man. J Clin Invest. 1976;58(3):705–15. doi: 10.1172/JCI108517.
  27. Kerrigan DP, Castillo A, Foucar K, et al. Peripheral blood morphologic changes after high-dose antineoplastic chemotherapy and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration. Am J Clin Pathol. 1989;92(3):280–5. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/92.3.280.
  28. Hakansson L, Hoglund M, Jonsson UB, et al. Effects of in vivo administration of G-CSF on neutrophil and eosinophil adhesion. Br J Haematol. 1997;98(3):603–11. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1997.2723093.x.
  29. Ohsaka A, Saionji K, Sato N, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor down-regulates the surface expression of the human leucocyte adhesion molecule-1 on human neutrophils in vitro and in vivo. Br J Haematol. 1993;84(4):574–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1993.tb03130.x.
  30. Mehta HM, Malandra M, Corey SJ. G-CSF and GM-CSF in Neutropenia. J Immunol. 2015;195(4):1341–9. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1500861.
  31. Dale DC, Bonilla MA, Davis MW, et al. A randomized controlled phase III trial of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim) for treatment of severe chronic neutropenia. Blood. 1993;81(10):2496–502. doi: 10.1182/blood.V81.10.2496.2496.
  32. Shinjo K, Takeshita A, Ohnishi K, Ohno R. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor receptor at various differentiation stages of normal and leukemic hematopoietic cells. Leuk Lymphoma. 1997;25(1–2):37–46. doi: 10.3109/10428199709042494.
  33. Clark OA, Lyman GH, Castro AA, et al. Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(18):4198–214. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.645.
  34. Garcia-Carbonero R, Mayordomo JI, Tornamira MV, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenia: a multicenter randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(1):31–8. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.1.31.
  35. Maher DW, Lieschke GJ, Green M, et al. Filgrastim in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121(7):492–501. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-121-7-199410010-00004.
  36. Mitchell PL, Morland B, Stevens MC, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in established febrile neutropenia: a randomized study of pediatric patients. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):1163–70. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.3.1163.
  37. Trillet-Lenoir V, Green J, Manegold C, et al. Recombinant granulocyte colony stimulating factor reduces the infectious complications of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A(3):319–24. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(93)90376-q.
  38. Crawford J, Ozer H, Stoller R, et al. Reduction by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of fever and neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(3):164–70. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199107183250305.
  39. Crawford J, Becker PS, Armitage JO, et al. Myeloid Growth Factors, Version 2.2017. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(12):1520–41. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0175.
  40. Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, et al. 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(1):8–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013.
  41. Crawford J, Caserta C, Roila F, ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Hematopoietic growth factors: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the applications. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(Suppl 5):v248–v251. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq195.
  42. Lawrence SM, Corriden R, Nizet V. The Ontogeny of a Neutrophil: Mechanisms of Granulopoiesis and Homeostasis. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2018;82(1):e00057–17. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00057-17.
  43. Murphy P. The Neutrophil. Boston: Springer; 1976. pp. 33–67.
  44. Lord BI, Bronchud MH, Owens S, et al. The kinetics of human granulopoiesis following treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1989;86(23):9499–503. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.23.9499.
  45. Lie AK, Hui CH, Rawling T, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) dose-dependent efficacy in peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients who had failed initial mobilization with chemotherapy and G-CSF. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998;22(9):853–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1701463.
  46. van Der Auwera P, Platzer E, Xu ZX, et al. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of single doses of subcutaneous pegylated human G-CSF mutant (Ro 25-8315) in healthy volunteers: comparison with single and multiple daily doses of filgrastim. Am J Hematol. 2001;66(4):245–51. doi: 10.1002/ajh.1052.
  47. Morstyn G, Campbell L, Souza LM, et al. Effect of granulocyte colony stimulating factor on neutropenia induced by cytotoxic chemotherapy. Lancet. 1988;1(8587):667–72. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)91475-4.
  48. Shochat E, Rom-Kedar V, Segel LA. G-CSF control of neutrophils dynamics in the blood. Bull Math Biol. 2007;69(7):2299–338. doi: 10.1007/s11538-007-9221-1.
  49. Shochat E, Rom-Kedar V. Novel strategies for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment of severe prolonged neutropenia suggested by mathematical modeling. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(20):6354–63. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0807.
  50. Mayadas TN, Cullere X, Lowell CA. The multifaceted functions of neutrophils. Annu Rev Pathol. 2014;9(1):181–218. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pathol-020712-164023.
  51. Hayes MP, Enterline JC, Gerrard TL, Zoon KC. Regulation of interferon production by human monocytes: requirements for priming for lipopolysaccharide-induced production. J Leuk Biol. 1991;50(2):176–81. doi: 10.1002/jlb.50.2.176.
  52. Boneberg EM, Hareng L, Gantner F, et al. Human monocytes express functional receptors for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor that mediate suppression of monokines and interferon-γ. Blood. 2000;95(1):270–6. doi: 10.1182/blood.V95.1.270.
  53. de Kleijn S, Langereis JD, Leentjens J, et al. IFN-γ-stimulated neutrophils suppress lymphocyte proliferation through expression of PD-L1. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e72249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072249.
  54. Rutella S, Zavala F, Danese S, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a novel mediator of T cell tolerance. J Immunol. 2005;175(11):7085– doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.11.7085.
  55. Ali N. Chimeric antigen T cell receptor treatment in hematological malignancies. Blood Res. 2019;54(2):81– doi: 10.5045/br.2019.54.2.81.
  56. Bais S, Bartee E, Rahman MM, et al. Oncolytic virotherapy for hematological malignancies. Adv Virol. 2012;2012:1–8. doi: 10.1155/2012/186512.
  57. Calton CM, Kelly KR, Anwer F, et al. Oncolytic Viruses for Multiple Myeloma Therapy. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10(6):198. doi: 10.3390/cancers10060198.
  58. Matveeva OV, Chumakov PM. Defects in interferon pathways as potential biomarkers of sensitivity to oncolytic viruses. Rev Med Virol. 2018;28(6):e2008. doi: 10.1002/rmv.2008.

Plerixafor in Patients with Decreased Mobilizing Ability of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cells

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION , , ,

MA Kucher1, МS Motalkina2, ОU Klimova1, ЕV Kondakova1, ОB Kalashnikova1, SМ Alekseev2, DV Motorin3, DV Babenetskaya3, EI Podol’tseva4, NB Mikhailova1, МА Estrina1, ЕV Babenko1, AYu Zaritskii3, BV Afanas’ev1

1 R.M. Gorbacheva Scientific Research Institute of Pediatric Hematology and Transplantation; Academician I.P. Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University, 6/8 L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197022

2 N.N. Petrov Scientific Research Institute of Oncology, 68 Leningradskaya str., settlement Pesochnyi, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197758

3 V.A. Almazov Federal North-West Medical Research Centre, 2 Akkuratova str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197341

4 Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 31, 3 Dinamo pr-t, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197110

For correspondence: Maksim Anatol’evich Kucher, PhD, 6/8 L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197022; Tel.: +7(812)338-62-60; e-mail: doctorkucher@yandex.ru

For citation: Kucher MA, Motalkina MS, Klimova OU, et al. Plerixafor in Patients with Decreased Mobilizing Ability of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cells. Clinical oncohematology. 2016;9(2):155–61 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2016-9-2-155-161

ABSTRACT

Background & Aims. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT) is an effective treatment for patients with malignant lymphoproliferative disorders, multiple myelomas and solid tumors sensitive to chemotherapy. Harvesting of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) prior autoHSCT may be ineffective in up to 40 % of cases, if aggravating factors are present. One of methods to overcome the reduced mobilization ability is to include a CXCR4-inhibitor (plerixafor) to the mobilization strategies. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different autologous HSC mobilization regimens containing plerixafor.

Methods. 63 patients with solid and hematological malignancies were included into the study. 2 mobilization regimens were used: filgrastim + plerixafor (n = 47) and pegfilgrastim + plerixafor (n = 16). Filgrastim was prescribed at a dose 5 mg/kg twice a day subcutaneously on days 1–4; on day 4, at 12.00 am, plerixafor was prescribed at a dose of 0.24 mg/kg subcutaneously; on day 5, filgrastim 5 mg/kg was administered subcutaneously, and then a cytapheresis session was performed at 10.00 am. Pegfilgrastim was administered subcutaneously at a dose of 6 mg on day 1; on day 4, plerixafor was administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.24 mg/kg at 06.00 am; then, 11 hours later, cytapheresis was performed. The cytapheresis was performed at a level of CD34+ cells ³ 20 ´ 106/mL.

Results. In 73.7 % of cases (n = 42), patients had an advanced stage disease and underwent more than one chemotherapy line prior to mobilization of autologous HSC. After mobilization with G-CSF (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim), the CD34+ cell count in peripheral blood was 0–17 ´ 106/mL (median 9.8 ´ 106/mL). Further injection of plerixafor increased the CD34+ cell count to 2–89 ´ 106/mL (median 31.6 ´ 106/mL) (p = 0.0001). In 85.7 % of cases (n = 54), the sufficient amount of CD34+ cells (³ 2 ´ 106/kg; median 5.1 ´ 106/kg) was harvested for transplantation. The effectiveness of mobilization in two groups was comparable 90.2 % for the filgrastim + plerixafor regimen and 68.7 % for pegfilgrastim + plerixafor (p = 0.08). The use of the filgrastim + plerixafor combination in patients with low baseline CD34+ cell counts increased the number of hematopoietic stem cells up to 6.6–63 ´ 106/mL (median 27.1 ´ 106/mL), thus allowing to harvest a good quality graft in 83.3 % of cases (p = 0.0001). When the level of CD34+ cell counts was in the «grey zone», successful graft harvesting was performed in 90 % of cases: 1.74–4.6 ´ 106/kg; median 3.1 ´ 106/kg (p = 0.0001). Complications associated with plerixafor were observed in 2 cases: diarrhea (n = 1) and hypocalcaemia (n = 1).

Conclusion. In patients who are poor mobilizers, the use of plerixafor-containing regimens increased the chance of successful graft harvesting with good tolerability.

Keywords: hematopoietic stem cell mobilization, G-CSF, pegfilgrastim, plerixafor.

Received: February 17, 2016

Accepted: February 18, 2016

Read in PDF (RUS)pdficon

REFERENCES

  1. Ljungman P, Bregni M, Brune M, et al. Allogeneic and autologous transplantation for haematological diseases, solid tumours and immune disorders: current practice in Europe 2009. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(2):219–34. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2009.141.
  2. Gratwohl A, Baldomero H, Schwendener A, et al. The EBMT activity survey 2008: impact of team size, team density and new trends. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(2):174–91. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.69.
  3. Baldomero H, Gratwohl M, Gratwohl A, et al. The EBMT activity survey 2009: trends over the past 5 years. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(4):485–501. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2011.11.
  4. Duong HK, Savani BN, Copelan E, et al. Peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization for autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: Guidelines from the American Society for blood and marrow transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(9):1262–73. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.05.003.
  5. Wuchter P, Ran D, Bruckner T, et al. Poor mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells – definitions, incidence, risk factors and impact on outcome of autologous transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16(4):490–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.11.012.
  6. Han X, Ma L, Zhao L, et al. Predictive factors for inadequate stem cell mobilization in Chinese patients with NHL and HL: 14-year experience of a single-center study. J Clin Apher. 2012;27(2):64–74. doi: 10.1002/jca.21204.
  7. Sancho JM, Morgades M, Grifols JR, et al. Predictive factors for poor peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and peak CD34(+) cell count to guide pre-emptive or immediate rescue mobilization. Cytotherapy. 2012;14(7):823–9. doi: 10.3109/14653249.2012.681042.
  8. Olivieri A, Marchetti M, Lemoli R et al. Proposed definition of ‘poor mobilizer’ in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: an analytic hierarchy process by ad hoc working group Gruppo ItalianoTrapianto di Midollo Osseo. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(3):342–51. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2011.82.
  9. Mohty M, Hubel K, Kroger N, et al. Autologous haematopoietic stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients: a position statement from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;49(7):1–5. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.39.
  10. Jantunen E, Kvalheim G. Mobilization strategies in hard-to-mobilize patients with lymphoid malignancies. Eur J Haematol. 2010;85(6):463–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2010.01520.x.
  11. Fricker SP. Physiology and Pharmacology of Plerixafor. Transfus Med Hemother. 2013;40(4):237–45. doi: 10.1159/000354132.
  12. Hartmann T, Hubel K, Monsef I, et al. Additional plerixafor to granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for haematopoietic stem cell mobilisation for autologous transplantation in people with malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev – Article in press, 2015. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010615.pub2.
  13. DiPersio JF, Stadtmauer EA, Nademanee A, et al. Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;113:5720–6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-08-174946.
  14. DiPersio JF, Micallef IN, Stiff PJ, et al. Phase III prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of plerixafor plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor compared with placebo plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for autologous stem-cell mobilization and transplantation for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4767–73. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.7209.
  15. Saraceni F, Shem-Tov N, Olivieri A, Nagler A. Mobilized peripheral blood grafts include more than hematopoietic stem cells: the immunological perspective. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(7):886–91. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.330.
  16. Flomenberg N, Devine SM, DiPersio JF, et al. The use of AMD3100 plus G-CSF for autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization is superior to G-CSF alone. Blood. 2005;106(5):1867–74. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-02-0468.
  17. Fruehauf S. Current Clinical Indications for Plerixafor. Transfus Med Hemother. 2013;40(4):246–50. doi: 10.1159/000354229.
  18. Veeraputhiran M, Jain T, Cronin S, et al. Successful hematopoietic stem cell collection in patients who fail initial plerixafor mobilization for autologous stem cell transplant. J Clin Apheresis. 2014;26(6):293–8. doi: 10.1002/jca.21321.
  19. Herbert KE, Demosthenous L, Wiesner G, et al. Plerixafor plus pegfilgrastim is a safe, effective mobilization regimen for poor or adequate mobilizers of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells: a phase I clinical trial. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(8):1056–62. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.112.
  20. Maschan AA, Balashov DN, Kurnikova EE, et al. Efficacy of plerixafor in children with malignant tumors failing to mobilize a sufficient number of hematopoietic progenitors with G-CSF. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(8):1089–91. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2015.71.