ArticleCytotherapy2015
Hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with "just-in-time" plerixafor approach is a cost-effective alternative to routine plerixafor use.
Article in Cytotherapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- G-CSF + plerixafor versus G-CSF alone mobilized hematopoietic stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2024Pooled it
- [Effect of different induction chemotherapy regimens on autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma in the new drug era].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Preemptive Plerixafor Versus Rescue Plerixafor for Mobilization and Collection of Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Patients With Multiple Myeloma and Lymphoma.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2025Observational
- Mobilization strategies with and without plerixafor for autologous stem cell transplant in patients with multiple myeloma.Bone marrow transplantation · 2024Article
- Efficacy, safety, and cost of mobilization strategies in multiple myeloma: a prospective, observational study.Haematologica · 2023Observational
- Pre-mobilization platelet count predicts stem cell yield during mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma.Cancer pathogenesis and therapy · 2023Article
- Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma: Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Cyclophosphamide +/- Plerixafor versus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor +/- Plerixafor in the Lenalidomide Era.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2021Article
- YF-H-2015005, a CXCR4 Antagonist, for the Mobilization of Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients: A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 3 Clinical Trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Analysis of data collected in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Registry on a cohort of lymphoma patients receiving plerixafor.Bone marrow transplantation · 2020Article
- Rapid prediction of stem cell mobilization using volume and conductivity data from automated hematology analyzers.Transfusion · 2018Article
- Hematopoietic stem cell mobilization: current status and future perspective.Blood research · 2017Article
- A single center's experience using four different front line mobilization strategies in lymphoma patients planned to undergo autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation.Bone marrow transplantation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND
aimsHematopoietic cell mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor results in superior CD34+ cell yield compared with G-CSF alone in patients with myeloma and lymphoma. However, plerixafor-based approaches may be associated with high costs. Several institutions use a "just-in-time" plerixafor approach, in which plerixafor is only administered to patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone. Whether such an approach is cost-effective is unknown.
methodsWe evaluated 136 patients with myeloma or lymphoma who underwent mobilization with 2 approaches of plerixafor utilization. Between January 2010 and October 2012, 76 patients uniformly received mobilization with G-CSF and plerixafor. Between November 2012 and June 2014, 60 patients were mobilized with plerixafor administered only to those patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone.
resultsThe routine plerixafor group had a higher median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (62 versus 29 cells/μL, P < 0.001) and a higher median day 1 CD34+ yield (2.9 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg versus 2.1 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg, P = 0.001). The median total CD34+ collection was higher with routine plerixafor use (5.8 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg versus 4.5 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg, P = 0.007). In the "just-in-time" group, 40% (n = 24) completed adequate collection without plerixafor. There was no difference in mobilization failure rates. The mean plerixafor doses used was lower with "just-in-time" approach (1.3 versus 2.1, P = 0.0002). The mean estimated cost in the routine plerixafor group was higher (USD 27,513 versus USD 23,597, P = 0.01). DISCUSSION: Our analysis demonstrates that mobilization with a just-in-time plerixafor approach is a safe, effective, and cost-efficient strategy for HPC collection.
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.