You have to be registered and logged in for purchasing articles.


Comparison of Various Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization Regimens in Patients with Lymphoma and Myeloma by Üstün Yilmaz, Ozan Salim, Orhan K. Yücel, Utku Iltar, Levent Ündar

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cyclophosphamide-based (CB) and platinum-based (PB) chemotherapy regimens for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM), Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and the less well-known IEV (iphosphamide, epirubicin, etoposide) regimen in terms of stem cell harvesting competence, factors affecting stem cell com-petence, and toxicity.
Methods: A retrospective evaluation was made of 203 patients (94 MM, 37 HL, and 72 NHL) with peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in different chemotherapy regimens between 2000 and 2010 at the Department of He-matology, Faculty of Medicine, Akdeniz University.
Results: There were no differences between CB or PB mobilization regimens and IEV chemotherapy schema in terms of sufficiency of peripheral stem cell harvest, which was predefined as the collected number of peripheral stem cells ≥ 3 x 106/kg for single hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and ≥ 5 x 106/kg for tandem HSCT. There were also no significant differences between low dose cyclophosphamide, high dose cyclophosphami-de, and HCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, dexamethasone, methotrexate, cytosine arabinoside [ARA-C]) among the subgroups of cyclophosphamide-based regimens. The number of peripheral blood stem cells collected using ESHAP (ethoposide, methylprednisolone, ARA-C, cisplatin), a platin-based regimen, was significantly higher than the other platin-based regimens including DHAP (dexamethasone, ARA-C, cisplatin), ICE (iphosphamide, carboplatin, ethopocide), and EDAP (etoposide, dexamethasone, ARA-C, cisplatin). The toxicity profiles of CB, PB, and IEV chemotherapies were similar. To determine the independent predictors of the efficacy of the stem cell harvest procedure and collected stem cell count, age, diagnosis, duration of disease, number of treatment sequences before mobilization, and number of rescue regimens were included into multiple logistic regression analysis. However, no correlations were determined.
Conclusions: The results of this study provide information on the effectiveness of different stem cell mobilization regimens. Although no significant difference was determined between the three major chemotherapy regimens, the ESHAP regimen appears to be the preferred treatment regimen for stem cell mobilization in selected lymphomas.

DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2019.190214