RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Induction with daratumumab-based regimens followed by autologous stem cell transplantation is the current standard for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients eligible for intensive chemotherapy. However, concerns emerged regarding potential negative effects following daratumumab-based treatment on CD34+ mobilization. We here compared CD34+ mobilization and clonogenic potential between daratumumab and non-daratumumab based therapy without upfront plerixafor administration among patients affected by NDMM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical, mobilization and clonogenic data from 41 consecutively enrolled NDMM patients were analyzed. Patients underwent collection of autologous CD34+ by apheresis at the ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy, from January 2021 to March 2023. Clonogenicity analysis was performed on BFU-E and CFU-GM. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of daratumumab-treated patients underwent >1 apheresis, compared to 24% of non-daratumumab patients (p=0.0017). Daratumumab-treated patients had significantly lower CD34+ count (mean 38 vs 79/µL, respectively; p=0.0011), with a median CD34+ harvest of 3.98×106/kg (range 1.68-9.18) vs 6.87×106/kg (range 1.63-16.85) in non-daratumumab-treated (p=0.0006). In multivariate analysis the likelihood of undergoing >1 apheresis was significantly higher in older patients (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1-1.4, Z=2.10, p=0.03) and daratumumab-treated patients (OR 15, 95% CI 2.8-129, p=0.004). Moreover, daratumumab-based induction therapy demonstrated an independent negative association with BFU-E colony formation (p=0.0148), even when accounting for patient age and CD34+ levels. DISCUSSION: Our findings underscore the impact of daratumumab-based treatment on CD34+ mobilization in a real-life, upfront plerixafor-free population of NDMM patients. Higher probability of requiring multiple apheresis occurred among daratumumab-treated patients. Interestingly, the observation that daratumumab might negatively impact BFU-E colony formation, independent of CD34+ cell count, offers novel biological perspectives. Appropriate strategies should be adopted by the Apheresis teams to mitigate these potential negative effects.
RESUMO
We analyzed safety of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) and dexamethasone (NEPA+DEX) for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in classical Hodgkin's lymphoma patients that experienced CINV with a prophylaxis with palonosetron (PALO + DEX). In a retrospective, monocentric, noncomparative study, we analyzed adverse events and CINV grading in patients who switched from PALO + DEX to NEPA + DEX. Among 32 patients treated with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) during the study period, 47% did not properly control CINV with PALO + DEX and were shifted to NEPA + DEX. Among these, 53.3% properly controlled CINV is for all the remaining chemotherapy cycles. We did not observe an increase of adverse events after switching to NEPA. In our study, NEPA did not show drug-drug interaction with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) chemotherapy agents and NEPA administration was well tolerated with mild and transient adverse events.
