A multicenter report on the safety and efficacy of plerixafor based stem cell mobilization in children with malignant disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Pleraxifor for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization in children with malignancies is often given following failure of standard mobilization (SM) rather than as a primary mobilizing agent. Study Design and Methods In this retrospective multicenter study, we report the safety of plerixafor‐based PBSC mobilization in children with malignancies and compare outcomes between patients who received plerixafor upfront with SM (Group A) with those who received plerixafor following failure of SM (Group B). In the latter pleraxifor was given either following a low peripheral blood (PB) CD34 (<20 cells/cu.mm) (Group B1) or as a second collection process due to an unsuccessful yield (CD34 + < 2 × 10 6 /kg) (Group B2) following failed SM and first apheresis attempts. Results The study cohort (n = 47) with a median age of 8 (range 0.6‐21) year, comprised 19 (40%) Group A and 28 (60%) Group B patients (B1 = 12 and B2 = 16). Pleraxifor mobilization was successful in 87.2% of patients, similar between Groups A and B (84.2% vs 89.2%) and resulted in a median 4‐fold increase in PB CD34. Median number of apheresis attempts was 2 in Groups A and B1 but 4 in Group B2. In Group B2, median total CD34+ yield post‐plerixafor was 9‐fold higher than after SM ( P = .0013). Mild to moderate transient adverse events affected 8.5% of patients. Among patients who proceeded to autologous transplant (n = 39), all but one engrafted. Conclusion Plerixafor‐based PBSC collection was safe and effective in our cohort and supports consideration as a primary mobilizing agent in children with malignancies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".