BACKGROUND: Early identification of predictive factors of failure to mobilise CD34+ cells could enable rational use of plerixafor during first mobilisation, avoiding the need for a second mobilisation course. However, "on demand" administration of plerixafor needs to be driven by established parameters to avoid inappropriate use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address this issue, we studied the value of the peripheral blood CD34+ count, measured early (on days +10, +11, +12 and +13), in predicting the mobilisation outcome in the ensuing days. We retrospectively collected data from three Italian centres on 233 patients affected by multiple myeloma or lymphoma who underwent a first or second attempt at mobilisation with cyclophosphamide 4 g/m(2) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. To assess the diagnostic value of peripheral blood white blood cell and CD34+ cell counts with respect to "mobilisation failure", we considered failed mobilisation as "disease" and the CD34+ cell count in peripheral blood, on a specific day, as a "diagnostic test". For various thresholds, we measured sensitivity, false positive rate, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) as well as the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC). RESULTS: A CD34+ cell count <10 × 10(6)/L on day 13 had high sensitivity (1.00) and high specificity (1.00) for predicting subsequent mobilisation failure, with an AUC of 1.0. However, good prediction was also obtained using a lower threshold (CD34+ cell count: <6 × 10(6)/L) at an earlier time (day 12). The PPV of the day 13 threshold was 1.00 while that of the day 12 one was 0.87. DISCUSSION: We propose that patients with <6 × 10(6)/L CD34+ cells in peripheral blood on day 12 and <10 × 10(6)/L on day 13 following mobilisation with cyclophosphamide 4 g/m(2) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor are candidates for "on demand" use of plerixafor, making the administration of this expensive agent more efficient and avoiding its inappropriate use.
BACKGROUND: Early identification of predictive factors of failure to mobilise CD34+ cells could enable rational use of plerixafor during first mobilisation, avoiding the need for a second mobilisation course. However, "on demand" administration of plerixafor needs to be driven by established parameters to avoid inappropriate use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address this issue, we studied the value of the peripheral blood CD34+ count, measured early (on days +10, +11, +12 and +13), in predicting the mobilisation outcome in the ensuing days. We retrospectively collected data from three Italian centres on 233 patients affected by multiple myeloma or lymphoma who underwent a first or second attempt at mobilisation with cyclophosphamide 4 g/m(2) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. To assess the diagnostic value of peripheral blood white blood cell and CD34+ cell counts with respect to "mobilisation failure", we considered failed mobilisation as "disease" and the CD34+ cell count in peripheral blood, on a specific day, as a "diagnostic test". For various thresholds, we measured sensitivity, false positive rate, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) as well as the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC). RESULTS: A CD34+ cell count <10 × 10(6)/L on day 13 had high sensitivity (1.00) and high specificity (1.00) for predicting subsequent mobilisation failure, with an AUC of 1.0. However, good prediction was also obtained using a lower threshold (CD34+ cell count: <6 × 10(6)/L) at an earlier time (day 12). The PPV of the day 13 threshold was 1.00 while that of the day 12 one was 0.87. DISCUSSION: We propose that patients with <6 × 10(6)/L CD34+ cells in peripheral blood on day 12 and <10 × 10(6)/L on day 13 following mobilisation with cyclophosphamide 4 g/m(2) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor are candidates for "on demand" use of plerixafor, making the administration of this expensive agent more efficient and avoiding its inappropriate use.
Authors: L P Akard; J M Thompson; M J Dugan; M Wiemann; A Greenspan; S Hanks; M Swinney; A Nyhuis; J Jansen Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 1999 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: O Fitoussi; V Perreau; J M Boiron; E Bouzigon; P Cony-Makhoul; A Pigneux; P Agape; F Nicolini; B Dazey; J Reiffers; R Salmi; G Marit Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: A P Grigg; A W Roberts; H Raunow; S Houghton; J E Layton; A W Boyd; K M McGrath; D Maher Journal: Blood Date: 1995-12-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Neal Flomenberg; Steven M Devine; John F Dipersio; Jane L Liesveld; John M McCarty; Scott D Rowley; David H Vesole; Karin Badel; Gary Calandra Journal: Blood Date: 2005-05-12 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Anna Szmigielska-Kaplon; Anna Krawczynska; Magdalena Czemerska; Agnieszka Pluta; Barbara Cebula-Obrzut; Katarzyna Szmigielska; Konrad Stępka; Piotr Smolewski; Tadeusz Robak; Agnieszka Wierzbowska Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 3.443