ArticleJournal of clinical apheresis2012
The effective use of plerixafor as a real-time rescue strategy for patients poorly mobilizing autologous CD34(+) cells.
Article in Journal of clinical apheresis, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma comparison of two consecutive regimens in a limited resources country.Bone marrow transplantation · 2017Trial
- Phase 2 trial of intravenously administered plerixafor for stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma following lenalidomide-based initial therapy.Bone marrow transplantation · 2014Trial
- Associations between CT Radiomics Analyses and Hematopoietic Cell Mobilization in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: An Exploratory Analysis.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2026Article
- Hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with "just-in-time" plerixafor approach is a cost-effective alternative to routine plerixafor use.Cytotherapy · 2015Article
- Comparable efficacy and lower cost of PBSC mobilization with intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF compared with plerixafor and G-CSF in patients with multiple myeloma treated with novel therapies.Bone marrow transplantation · 2013Article
- Just-in-time rescue plerixafor in combination with chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization.American journal of hematology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Plerixafor enhances CD34(+) cell mobilization, however, its optimal use is unknown. We hypothesized that plerixafor could "rescue" patients in the midst of mobilization when factors indicated a poor CD34(+) yield. Of 295 consecutive autologous peripheral blood mobilization attempts at our center, 39 (13%) used plerixafor as rescue strategy due to a CD34(+) cell concentration <10/μl (median 5.95/μl, n = 30), low CD34(+) cell yield from prior apheresis day (median 1.06 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg, n = 7), or other (n = 2). Patients received a median of one plerixafor dose (range: 1-4). Thirty-four (87%) collected =2 × 10 (6) CD34(+) cells/kg and 26 (67%) collected =4 × 10 (6) CD34(+) cells/kg. Median collections for lymphoma (n = 24) and myeloma (n = 15) patients were 4.1 × 10(6) and 8.3 × 10(6) CD34/kg, respectively. A single dose of plerixafor was associated with an increase in the mean peripheral blood CD34(+) concentration of 17.2 cells/μl (P < 0.001) and mean increased CD34(+) cell yield following a single apheresis of 5.11 × 10(6) /kg (P < 0.03). A real-time rescue use of plerixafor is feasible and may allow targeted use of this agent. J. Clin. Apheresis, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.