Skip to main content

Table 1 The characteristics and mobilization results of the 44 studies included in review

From: Efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

References Study design Enroll period Patients Mobilization regimen Main results
G-CSF plus Plerixafor SD versus G-CSF alone
DiPersio et al. [32] Phase 3 RCT, double-blind, multicenter Jan. 2005–Aug. 2006 NHL G-CSF SD; G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD The Plerixafor group showed significantly higher rate of achieving optimal target (P < 0.001)* and higher CD34+ cells collected
DiPersio et al. [33] Phase 3 RCT, double-blind, multicenter Feb. 2005–Jul. 2006 MM G-CSF SD; G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD The Plerixafor group showed significantly higher rate of achieving optimal target (P < 0.001)* and higher CD34+ cells collected
Matsue et al. [48] Phase 2 RCT, open-label, multicenter Nov. 2014–Mar. 2016 NHL G-CSF SD; G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD The Plerixafor group showed higher rate of achieving optimal target
Nahi et al. [50] Phase 2 RCT, open-label, multicenter NA MM G-CSF SD; G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD The Plerixafor group showed higher CD34+ cells yield
Ri et al. [55] Phase 2 RCT, open-label, multicenter Oct. 2014–Jul. 2015 MM G-CSF SD; G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD The Plerixafor group showed higher rate of achieving optimal target
Zhu et al. [66] Phase 3 RCT, double-blind, multicenter Apr. 2013–Nov. 2014 NHL G-CSF SD; G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD The Plerixafor group showed significantly higher rate of achieving optimal target (P < 0.0001)*
G-CSF plus YF-H-2015005 versus G-CSF alone
Liu et al. [44] Phase 3 RCT, double-blind, multicenter Jan. 2017- Dec. 2018 NHL G-CSF SD; G-CSF SD + YF-H-2015005 YF-H-2015005 significantly increased the rate of achieving optimal target (P < 0.001)* and the number of CD34+ cells collected (P < 0.001)*
Chemotherapy regimens plus G-CSF versus G-CSF alone
Karanth et al. [40] RCT, open-label, single center Nov. 1998–Nov. 2002 HL, NHL, MM or CLL G-CSF SD; CY + G-CSF RD No significant differences in rate of successful mobilization (P = 0.21) and the number of CD34+ cells collected
Silvennoinen et al. [58] Phase 2 RCT, multicenter Jan. 2013- Feb. 2015 MM G-CSF SD; CY + G-CSF RD CY plus G-CSF RD resulted in significantly higher CD34+ cells yield (P = 0.012)*
Valtola et al. [61] RCT, multicenter Jan. 2013–Nov. 2014 MM G-CSF SD; CY + G-CSF RD No significant differences in the number of total CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.064)
Milone et al. [49] RCT, single center Mar. 1998–Jul. 2002 NHL or HL G-CSF SD; CY + G-CSF SD No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected (P > 0.9) and the rate of successful mobilization (P > 0.4)
Narayanasami et al. [51] RCT, single center Nov. 1997–Nov. 2000 NHL or HL G-CSF SD; CY + G-CSF SD CY plus G-CSF SD resulted in significantly higher total number of CD34 + cells collected (P = 0.004*)
Czerw et al. [30] Phase 3 RCT, open-label, single center Mar. 2013–Mar. 2016 MM G-CSF SD; ID-AraC + G-CSF SD The ID-AraC group showed significantly higher total number of CD34+ cells collected (P < 0.000001) and higher rate of reaching optimal target (P = 0.0003)*
Comprisons among chemotherapy regimens
Chen et al. [28] RCT, single center Jan. 2005–May 2010 NHL CY + G-CSF RD; MA + G-CSF RD The number of total CD34+ cells collected were similar (P = 0.117)
Pavone et al. [54] RCT, single center NA NHL CY + G-CSF RD; DHAP + G-CSF RD No significant differences in the mean number of CD34+ cells collected
Vela-Ojeda et al. [62] RCT, single center Aug. 1994–Jun. 1999 NHL, HL or MM CY + GM-CSF RD; Ifosfamide + GM-CSF RD No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.1)
Jeker et al. [38] Phase 2 RCT, single center Dec. 2013–Apr. 2017 MM Vinorelbine + G-CSF SD; Gemcitabine + G-CSF SD The CD34+ cell yield was significantly higher in the Vinorelbine group (P = 0.001)*
Weaver et al. [63] RCT, single center Sept. 1992–Aug. 1994 NHL or HL CE + G-CSF RD; CEP + G-CSF RD No significant difference in the number of total CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.09)
Zhang et al. [64] RCT, single center Jan. 2001–Oct. 2012 NHL MEOD + G-CSF SD; MEOD + MTX + G-CSF SD The MTX group showed significantly higher CD34+ cells yield (P < 0.05)*
Pegfilgrastim versus G-CSF
Bouko et al. [26] Phase 2 RCT May 2006–Nov. 2011 MM G-CSF SD; Pegfilgrastim 12 or 18 mg No significant differences in the rate of reaching minimal and optimal target
Kuan et al. [42] RCT, triple blinded, single center Sep. 2010–Dec. 2012 Acute leukemia, MM or lymphoma CY + G-CSF RD; CY + Pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 3 or day 7 Pegfilgrastim 6 mg on day 7 produced highest rate of successful mobilization
Russell et al. [56] Phase 2 RCT, double-blind, multicenter Feb. 2003–Sep. 2004 NHL ICE + G-CSF RD; ICE + Pegfilgrastim 6 mg or 12 mg No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected and the rate of reaching optimal target
Skopec et al. [59] RCT, single center Feb. 2012–Nov. 2014 MM G-CSF SD; Pegfilgrastim 12 mg No significant difference in the number of CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.428)
Biosimilar G-CSF versus G-CSF
Bhamidipati et al. [25] Phase 2 RCT, open-label, single center Aug. 2014–Jun. 2016 MM or NHL G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD; Biosimilar G-CSF (Tbo-filgrastim) + Plerixafor SD No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected on day 5 (P = 0.873) and successful rate of reaching optimal target (P = 0.916)
Manko et al. [46] RCT, single center Jun. 2010–Sep. 2011 MM, NHL, HL, AML or other Chemotherapy + G-CSF SD; Chemotherapy + Biosimilar G-CSF SD; No significant differences in the number of CD34 + cells collected and the rate of successful mobilization
Marchesi et al. [47] RCT, single center Oct. 2014–Nov. 2017 NHL or HL Chemotherapy + G-CSF RD; Chemotherapy + Biosimilar G-CSF SD No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.805) and the rate of achieving optimal target (P = 1.00)
GM-CSF versus G-CSF
Arora et al. [24] RCT, single center 1993–2002 MM CMD + G-CSF RD; CMD + GM-CSF RD Two group showed similar CD34+ cells collection (P = 0.8). G-CSF is associated with faster neutrophil and platelet recovery
Demuynck et al. [31] RCT, single center NA MM CY + G-CSF SD; CY + GM-CSF SD No significant difference in CD34+ cells yield (P = 0.27). GM-CSF is associated with increased toxicity
Gazitt et al. [35] RCT, single center May 1997–Mar. 2000 NHL CY + G-CSF SD; CY + GM-CSF RD; CY + GM-CSF RD + G-CSF SD No significant differences in successful rate of collecting ≥ 2 × 106 CD34+CD45dim cells/kg
Hohaus et al. [37] RCT, double-blind, single center Aug. 1992–Dec. 1994 HL G-CSF RD; GM-CSF RD No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.696)
SCF versus no SCF
Bourin et al. [27] RCT, single center NA MM CY + G-CSF RD; SCF + G-CSF SD The total number of CD34+ cells collected were similar
Facon et al. [34] RCT, open-label, multicenter Mar. 1996–Oct. 1997 MM CY + G-CSF RD; CY + SCF + G-CSF RD The SCF group showed significant higher CD34+ cells yield (P = 0.007)*
Johnsen et al. [39] Phase 2 RCT, open-label, multicenter NA Malignant lymphoma CY + G-CSF SD; SCF + G-CSF SD The CY plus G-CSF group showed higher number of CD34+ cells collected and higher rate of reaching optimal target on first leukapheresis (P = 0.00018)*
Stiff et al. [60] RCT, multicenter NA NHL or HL G-CSF SD; SCF + G-CSF SD SCF group showed an increase in the median total CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.05)
Addition of other cytokines
Hart et al. [36] RCT, single center May 2004–Jan 2006 MM IEV + G-CSF RD; IEV + G-CSF RD + EPO No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.57)
Lonial et al. [45] RCT, single center NA Lymphoma or MM Chemotherapy + G-CSF SD; Chemotherapy + G-CSF RD + GM-CSF RD No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected
Zhu et al. [65] RCT, single center 2002–2005 NHL or AML Chemotherapy + G-CSF RD; Chemotherapy + G-CSF RD + IL-11 No significant differences in the number of total CD34+ cells collected
Zhu et al. [67] RCT, multicenter NA NHL CE + G-CSF RD; CE + G-CSF RD + TPO The TPO group showed significantly higher total number of CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.0054) and higher rate of reaching optimal target (P = 0.021)*
Comparison of different administration schedules
Kim et al. [41] RCT, single center Jun. 2003–Oct. 2004 MM or NHL CY or ESHAP (± Rituximab) + G-CSF SD (single-dose versus split-dose) No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.47) and rate of reaching optimal target (P = 0.24)
Kuruvilla et al. [43] Phase 4 RCT, open-label, multicenter Oct. 2010–Feb. 2013 NHL G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD; G-CSF SD + Plerixafor FD No significant differences in the rate of achieving optimal target (P = 0.395)
Ozcelik et al. [53] RCT, single center 2005–2008 NHL or MM CE + G-CSF SD (early versus late) No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.781)
Samaras et al. [57] Phase 2 RCT, single center 2011–2016 MM Vinorelbine + G-CSF SD; Vinorelbine + G-CSF RD No significant differences in the number of CD34+ cells collected (P = 0.99)
Others      
Copelan et al. [29] RCT, single center May. 2000–Apr. 2005 B-cell NHL VP-16 + G-CSF SD; Rituximab + VP-16 + G-CSF SD The Rituximab group showed significantly higher total number of CD34 + cells collected (P = 0.021)*
Orciuolo et al. [52] RCT, open-label, multicenter Apr. 2005–Jul. 2009 MM CY + G-CSF SD (lenograstim versus filgrastim) No significant differences in the rate of reaching optimal target
  1. AML, acute myelocytic leukemia; CE, cyclophosphamide and etoposide; CEP, cyclophosphamide and etoposide plus cisplatin; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; CMD, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone and dexamethasone; CY, cyclophosphamide; DHAP, dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin; ESHAP, etoposide, methylprednisolone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin; EPO, erythropoietin; FD, fixed dose; GM-CSF, granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor; G-CSF: granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; HL, Hodgkin lymphoma; ICE, ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide; ID-AraC, intermediate-dose cytarabine; IEV, ifosfamide, epirubicin and etoposide; IL-11, interleukin 11; MA, methotrexate, cytarabine; MEOD, mitoxantrone, etoposide, vindesine and dexamethasone; MM, multiple myeloma; MTX, methotrexate; NA, not available; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RD, reduced dose; SCF, stem cell factor; SD, standard dose; TPO, thrombopoietin; VP-16, etoposide; YF-H-2015005, a new CXCR4 antagonist
  2. *Results with significant difference