RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Plerixafor is used for patients at risk of Stem cell mobilization failure based on clinical factors or low peripheral blood CD34 count. It is also added upfront to any mobilization irrespective of risk factor, but the cost-effectiveness of the approach is an issue. Data on plerixafor in different settings of autologous hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) collection from India are scant. We are hereby reporting the experience of failure/success of mobilization rate and few important significant variables (CD34+ dosage, failed collection) between plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor alone groups among autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) at our institute. METHODS: This was a record-based single-center study on patients who underwent aHSCT from January 2013 to June 2019 at a tertiary care hospital. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics, transplant-related factors, and peritransplant outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed at the 5% significance level. RESULTS: During the study duration, a total of 96 patients had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell collection (aHSCC), all by peripheral blood stem cell harvest, requiring 131 apheretic collections. Of the total 131 collections in 96 patients, plerixafor was used in 63 apheresis collections (48% of total pheresis) in 40 patients. Among the 40 patients who were administered plerixafor to augment the collection, 34 patients had upfront use of plerixafor. We did not observe any significant adverse event related to plerixafor use. CONCLUSION: A rational utilization of plerixafor can facilitate the process and logistics of aHSCC outcome.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To study the late toxicities of treatment and its impact on Breast cancer survivors among Indian patients. Materials and Methods: Our study recruited 152 curatively treated non metastatic carcinoma breast patients. The baseline demographic details, disease related and treatment related information were collected. The late effects included breast cancer related lymphedema, shoulder dysfunction, treatment induced bone loss, hypothyroidism, cardiac dysfunction, and chemotherapy induced cognitive dysfunction and Quality of life. Results: The median age was 47 years (range 27 -72 years). The cumulative frequency of BCRL and shoulder dysfunction was 31.57% and 34.86% respectively. The improvement in BCRL with corrective intervention was not statistically significant. The BCRL was significantly associated with shoulder dysfunction. The frequency of loss of bone mineral density was 38.15%. There was statistically significant improvement in bone mineral density with interventions. The cumulative rate of hypothyroidism and cardiac dysfunction was 14.47 % and 2.17% respectively which improved after corrective therapy. We did not find any delayed cognitive dysfunction. There was improvement in global health, physical function, role function, fatigue, Nausea, vomiting, pain scores, insomnia, Loss of appetite, diarrhea and arm symptoms over time with intervention. Conclusion: Our study has shown that nearly half of the survivors were suffering from at least one of the late effects. The intervention helped in improving the loss of bone mineral density, hypothyroidism, cardiac dysfunction and quality of life in Breast cancer survivors.
