Effective mobilization with etoposide and cyclophosphamide for collection of peripheral blood stem cell in patients with multiple myeloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of etoposide and cyclophosphamide for mobilization peripheral stem cells in multiple myeloma patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 46 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent peripheral blood stem cell collection for upfront autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University between January 2010 and July 2019. The mobilization protocols included cyclophosphamide 2.0 g/m2 with G-CSF (CTX group) before January 2015, and two-days of 5 mg/kg.d etoposide and 1.0 g/m2.d cyclophosphamide with G-CSF (EC group) after January 2015. RESULTS: The success rate of harvest (≥2×106 cells/kg) during the first mobilization attempt was 82.1% in the EC group and 50.0% in the CTX group, and the rate of adequate harvest (≥4×106 cells/kg) was 57.1% in the EC group and 15.8% in the CTX group. After the second mobilization, a sufficient number of CD34+/kg cells for an auto-HSCT was obtained for all patients in the EC group and the majority (68.4%) of patients in CTX group. There was no significant difference of non-hematological adverse events between two groups. The mean neutrophil engraftment time was 11.22±1.56 days and 9.89±2.81days for the CTX and EC groups, respectively (P>0.05). Platelet engraftments were significantly faster in the EC group than the CTX group (P0.05). CONCLUSION: The etoposide and cyclophosphamide regimen could be an effective and safe method for mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma.
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) | 0.000 | 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".