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

Buy this article

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

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