Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Stem Cell Mobilisation

High-dose cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide for mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in patients with multiple myeloma: efficacy and toxicity

Summary:

The purpose of the study was to examine the yield of CD34+ cells, response rates, and toxicity of high-dose cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide in patients with multiple myeloma. In total, 77 myeloma patients received either cyclophosphamide 4.5 g/m2 (n=28) alone or with etoposide 2 g/m2 (n=49) in a nonrandomized manner, followed by G-CSF 10 μg/kg/day for the purpose of stem cell mobilization. The effects of various factors on CD34+ cell yield, response rate and engraftment were explored. A median of 22.39 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg were collected on the first day of leukapheresis (range 0.59–114.71 × 106/kg) in 71 (92%) of patients. Greater marrow plasma cell infiltration (P=0.02) or prior radiation therapy (P=0.02) adversely affected CD34+ cell yield. In total, 45% of patients receiving cyclophosphamide and 56% of those receiving cyclophosphamide/etoposide had at least a minimum response by EBMT criteria. In all, 25% of patients who received cyclophosphamide alone vs 75.5% of patients who received combined chemotherapy required hospitalization mainly for treatment of neutropenic fever. Cyclophosphamide alone is associated with impressive CD34+ cell yields and clear antimyeloma activity. The addition of etoposide resulted in increased toxicity without significant improvement in CD34+ cell yield or response rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM et al. A prospective, randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francais du Myelome. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 91–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Attal M, Harousseau JL . Randomized trial experience of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome. Semin Hematol 2001; 38: 226–230.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Desikan KR et al. Total therapy with tandem transplants for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 1999; 93: 55–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbui AM, Galli M, Dotti G et al. Negative selection of peripheral blood stem cells to support a tandem autologous transplantation programme in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2002; 116: 202–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Olavarria E, Kanfer EJ . Selection and use of chemotherapy with hematopoietic growth factors for mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells. Curr Opin Hematol 2000; 7: 191–196.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Blade J, Samson D, Reece D et al. Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant. Br J Haematol 1998; 102: 1115–1123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fermand JP, Ravaud P, Chevret S et al. High-dose therapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: up-front or rescue treatment? Results of a multicenter sequential randomized clinical trial. Blood 1998; 92: 3131–3136.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schmitz N, Linch DC, Dreger P et al. Randomised trial of filgrastim-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation versus autologous bone-marrow transplantation in lymphoma patients. Lancet 1996; 347: 353–357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Narayanasami U, Kanteti R, Morelli J et al. Randomized trial of filgrastim versus chemotherapy and filgrastim mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells for rescue in autologous transplantation. Blood 2001; 98: 2059–2064.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Meisenberg B, Brehm T, Schmeckel A et al. A combination of low-dose cyclophosphamide and colony-stimulating factors is more cost-effective than granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors alone in mobilizing peripheral blood stem and progenitor cells. Transfusion 1998; 38: 209–215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koc ON, Gerson SL, Cooper BW et al. Randomized cross-over trial of progenitor-cell mobilization: high-dose cyclophosphamide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor plus G-CSF. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1824–1830.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Demirer T, Buckner CD, Gooley T et al. Factors influencing collection of peripheral blood stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 1996; 17: 937–941.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldschmidt H, Hegenbart U, Wallmeier M et al. Factors influencing collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells following high-dose cyclophosphamide and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1997; 98: 736–744.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldschmidt H, Hegenbart U, Haas R, Hunstein W . Mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells with high-dose cyclophosphamide (4 or 7 g/m2) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 1996; 17: 691–697.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tricot G, Jagannath S, Vesole D et al. Peripheral blood stem cell transplants for multiple myeloma: identification of favorable variables for rapid engraftment in 225 patients. Blood 1995; 85: 588–596.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Prince HM, Imrie K, Sutherland DR et al. Peripheral blood progenitor cell collections in multiple myeloma: predictors and management of inadequate collections. Br J Haematol 1996; 93: 142–145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dimopoulos MA, Delasalle KB, Champlin R, Alexanian R . Cyclophosphamide and etoposide therapy with GM-CSF for VAD-resistant multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1993; 83: 240–244.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Kathleen Ruehle for assistance with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I Gojo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gojo, I., Guo, C., Sarkodee-Adoo, C. et al. High-dose cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide for mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in patients with multiple myeloma: efficacy and toxicity. Bone Marrow Transplant 34, 69–76 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1704529

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1704529

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links