Mobilization of Leukemic Cells Using Plerixafor as Part of a Myeloablative Preparative Regimen for Patients with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia Undergoing Allografting: Assessment of Safety and Tolerability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is potentially curative for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML); however, a major cause of treatment failure is disease relapse. The purpose of this single-center Phase I study was to determine the safety and tolerability of administration of the CXCR4 inhibitor plerixafor (Mozobil; Sanofi Genzyme) along with myeloablative conditioning in patients with AML undergoing allogeneic HCT. The rationale was that plerixafor may mobilize leukemic stem cells, making them more susceptible to the conditioning chemotherapy (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier NCT01141543). Three patients were enrolled into each of 4 sequential cohorts (12 patients total). Patients in the first cohort received 1 dose of plerixafor (240 μg/kg s.c.) before the first dose of fludarabine and busulfan, and subsequent cohorts received injections before 2, 3, and 4 days of conditioning chemotherapy. The median age at HCT was 49 years (range, 38 to 58 years). All patients engrafted following HCT, with an absolute neutrophil count ≥.5 × 10 9 /L observed at a median of 14 days (range, 11 to 18 days). Adverse events possibly related to plerixafor were transient and not severe. Main adverse events following the injection were nausea and dizziness in 4 patients (33%) and fatigue in 4 patients (33%). Among the 12 patients, 2 patients (17%) relapsed post-HCT and 6 (50%) were alive at the last follow-up. The median follow-up of survivors was 67 months (range, 53 to 82 months). In conclusion, plerixafor administration is safe and well tolerated when included in a myeloablative conditioning regimen for allogeneic HCT for AML. Further study in a larger cohort is warranted for the investigation of the impact of plerixafor on post-allogeneic HCT outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".