Chemotherapy-based versus chemotherapy-free stem cell mobilization (± plerixafor) in multiple myeloma patients: an Italian cost-effectiveness analysis.

Given the availability and efficacy of the mobilizing agent plerixafor in augmenting hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), there is a strong case for comparing the cost-effectiveness of mobilization with G-CSF + cyclophosphamide versus G-CSF alone. This study investigated the cost and effectiveness (i.e., successful 4 million-CD34+ collection) of G-CSF alone versus high-dose cyclophosphamide (4 g/m2) + G-CSF mobilization (± on-demand plerixafor) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) eligible for autograft in Italy. A decision tree-supported cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) model in MM patients was developed from the societal perspective. The CEA model compared G-CSF alone with cyclophosphamide 4 g/m2 + G-CSF (± on-demand plerixafor) and was populated with demographic, healthcare and non-healthcare resource utilization data collected from a questionnaire administered to six Italian oncohematologists. Costs were expressed in Euro (€) 2019. The CEA model showed that G-CSF alone was strongly dominant versus cyclophosphamide + G-CSF ( ± on-demand plerixafor), with incremental savings of €1198.59 and an incremental probability of a successful 4 million-CD34+ apheresis (+0.052). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base-case results. In conclusion, chemotherapy-free mobilization (± on-demand plerixafor) is a "good value for money" option for MM patients eligible for autograft.

Cost comparison of extracorporeal photopheresis technologies at the European Institute of Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection Unit at Istituto Europeo di Oncologia (IEO; Milan, Lombardia) provides extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) therapy to treat graft-vs-host disease (GvHD) using offline procedures. ECP can be administered via an integrated single device (online procedure). Total cost of performing ECP at IEO vs an integrated device was assessed using a micro-costing approach. METHODS: Ten offline ECP procedures for GvHD were monitored using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing methodology, which utilized costs of resources, and time spent by patients/healthcare personnel with each resource. Details of ECP steps were recorded (pre-/post-treatment clinical evaluations, biological sampling, cannulation, apheresis, irradiation, reinfusion time). Time and cost comparisons between offline (combination of equipment/devices) and online technologies (THERAKOS™ CELLEX™ Photopheresis System) were performed. Cost variables: consumables, personnel, equipment, and laboratory tests. Personnel costs for online procedures were calculated using published time estimates and IEO hourly rates. Costs recorded in 2018 euros. RESULTS: Median duration of IEO offline ECP procedures (296 minutes) was greater than that reported for CELLEX ECP delivery (120 minutes). Total cost of offline ECP (€1134.57 [$1314.57]/procedure) was greater than that reported for online delivery (€1063.95 [$1232.74]/procedure). IEO performs ~84 ECP procedures/y, which would require ~412 hours/y vs 168 hours/y for online procedures; suggesting €5932.08 [$6873.72]/y savings with online procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment highlights potential resource time savings with online procedures. Time saved could allow increased activity with the same resources, at a department level. Potential non-monetary benefits include reduced time burden on patients, increased availability of hospital staff and improved patient safety.

Comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance and FDG-PET/CT in the assessment of Hodgkin's lymphoma for staging and treatment response.

Computed tomography (CT), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), and hybrid FDG-PET/CT are the most commonly used diagnostic tools for the initial staging and treatment response assessment of lymphomas [1]. The aim of this report is to compare the correlations between functional imaging markers derived from FDG-PET/CT and whole-body, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) in a young patient affected by Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL).

Long-active granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization.

INTRODUCTION: Peg-filgrastim (PEG-FIL), a polyethylene glycol-conjugated form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), has been introduced in clinical practice and is effective in shortening the time of neutropenia after cytotoxic chemotherapy. G-CSF has emerged as the preferred cytokine for hematopoietic progenitor cells' (HPC) mobilization. Nevertheless, data on the ability of PEG-FIL in this field have been published. AREAS COVERED: We review publications in the field with the goal of providing an overview of this approach. EXPERT OPINION: PEG-FIL may be able to mobilize CD34(+) cells in a more timely fashion than G-CSF, with the advantages of only a single-dose administration, an earlier start and a reduction in the number of apheresis procedures. The main controversies concern the dosage of the drug and the optimal dose. In the context of chemo-mobilization, a single dose of 6 mg PEG-FIL seems effective in terms of HPC's mobilization and there is no increase in this effect if the dose is doubled to 12 mg. Steady-state mobilization requires higher doses of PEG-FIL and this approach is not cost-effective when compared with G-CSF. The experiences with PEG-FIL in the healthy donor setting are very limited.