Back to Search Start Over

Outcomes and costs of autologous stem cell mobilization with chemotherapy plus G-CSF vs G-CSF alone

Authors :
Guido Tricot
Stephen Brown
Nelson J. Chao
Leona Holmberg
Junya Kanda
Lisa M. Bernard
Paul J. Shaughnessy
Jane L. Liesveld
Mitchell E. Horwitz
Anthony D. Sung
Daniel T. Grima
Brian McClune
George Carrum
Source :
Bone marrow transplantation
Publication Year :
2013
Publisher :
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2013.

Abstract

Chemotherapy plus G-CSF (C+G) and G-CSF alone are two of the most common methods used to mobilize CD34(+) cells for autologous hematopoietic SCT (AHSCT). In order to compare and determine the real-world outcomes and costs of these strategies, we performed a retrospective study of 226 consecutive patients at 11 medical centers (64 lymphoma, 162 multiple myeloma), of whom 55% of lymphoma patients and 66% of myeloma patients received C+G. Patients with C+G yielded more CD34(+) cells/day than those with G-CSF alone (lymphoma: average 5.51 × 10(6) cells/kg on day 1 vs 2.92 × 10(6) cells/kg, P=0.0231; myeloma: 4.16 × 10(6) vs 3.69 × 10(6) cells/kg, P0.00001) and required fewer days of apheresis (lymphoma: average 2.11 vs 2.96 days, P=0.012; myeloma: 2.02 vs 2.83 days, P=0.0015), although nearly all patients ultimately reached the goal of 2 × 10(6) cells/kg. With the exception of higher rates of febrile neutropenia in myeloma patients with C+G (17% vs 2%, P0.05), toxicities and other outcomes were similar. Mobilization with C+G cost significantly more (lymphoma: median $10,300 vs $7300, P0.0001; myeloma: $8800 vs $5600, P0.0001), although re-mobilization adds $6700 for drugs alone. Our results suggest that although both C+G and G-CSF alone are effective mobilization strategies, C+G may be more cost-effective for patients at high risk of insufficient mobilization.

Details

ISSN :
14765365 and 02683369
Volume :
48
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Bone Marrow Transplantation
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....a981731142a9937150ebfe323bad57f8
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2013.80