Single institution retrospective review of CD34+ apheresis collection based on mobilization regimen and primary diagnosis

Abstract

Abstract Introduction/Objective Plerixafor has been increasingly used in conjunction with G-CSF to increase mobilization of CD34+ stem cells in patients undergoing leukapheresis collection for autologous stem cell transplantation. While G- CSF and plerixafor have been shown to increase CD34+ counts, studies examining patients’ ability to meet collection goals for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have not been well documented. Methods/Case Report All autologous stem cell collection patients between 2017-2021 were retrospectively reviewed and categorized by primary diagnosis. Patients received a mobilization regimen of G-CSF alone, G-CSF and plerixafor, G-CSF and chemotherapy, or G-CSF, plerixafor, and chemotherapy. CD34+ stem cell collection results were recorded. All units of CD34+ stem cells were processed according to protocol and viability was assessed by Trypan blue method on a thawed aliquot 2 weeks after processing. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) 385 patients (271 MM, 41 DLBCL, 30 HL, and 43 NHL patients; male: 242; female: 143; age range: 16-78) were identified. Binomial logistic regression demonstrated that use of plerixafor with G- CSF was negatively associated with meeting CD34+ goal collection (OR= -1.57, p= 0.003) compared to G-CSF alone. This result was particularly true for MM patients (OR= -1.62, p= 0.014). A pairwise t-test indicated that patients receiving G-CSF and plerixafor had lower CD34+ cell viabilities (t= 2.21, p = 0.028); after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, MM samples also had significantly lower percentage viability than DLBCL (p= 0.003) or HL (p= 0.022) samples. Conclusion A higher percentage of patients mobilized on G-CSF alone were able to meet collection goal versus patients who were mobilized on G-CSF and plerixafor. Patients who received G-CSF and plerixafor had significantly lower viability than those who received G-CSF alone. We hypothesize these findings to be due to lower baseline mobilization for patients on G-CSF and plerixafor.