AI Article Synopsis

  • A study evaluated the effectiveness of plerixafor combined with G-CSF for mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells in lymphoma patients who struggle to mobilize these cells, comparing it to standard methods like G-CSF alone and G-CSF plus chemotherapy.
  • The research involved 313 patients out of 3749 who used plerixafor, with specific pairings between plerixafor-containing regimens and other mobilization strategies to assess outcomes like progression-free survival and overall survival.
  • Results showed no significant differences in key outcomes like progression-free survival, overall survival, and relapse rates between the plerixafor group and the comparison groups, indicating that pler

Article Abstract

Plerixafor + granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is administered to patients with lymphoma who are poor mobilizers of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in Europe. This international, multicenter, non-interventional registry study (NCT01362972) evaluated long-term follow-up of patients with lymphoma who received plerixafor for HSC mobilization versus other mobilization methods. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between comparison groups. The following mobilization regimens were compared: G-CSF + plerixafor (G + P) versus G-CSF alone; G + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G + C); and G-CSF + plerixafor + chemotherapy (G + P + C) versus G + C. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR). Overall, 313/3749 (8.3%) eligible patients were mobilized with plerixafor-containing regimens. After propensity score matching, 70 versus 36 patients were matched in the G + P versus G-CSF alone cohort, 124 versus 124 in the G + P versus G + C cohort, and 130 versus 130 in the G + P + C versus G + C cohort. For both PFS and OS, the upper bound of confidence interval for the hazard ratio was >1.3 for all comparisons, implying that non-inferiority was not demonstrated. No major differences in PFS, OS, and CIR were observed between the plerixafor and comparison groups.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7051902PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41409-019-0693-zDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

g + p versus
16
versus g + c
12
versus
10
patients lymphoma
8
propensity score
8
score matching
8
comparison groups
8
versus g-csf
8
g + p + c versus
8
g + c cohort
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!