In healthy donors it is possible to predict successful HPC mobilization by donor sex, age, WBC count, and G-CSF form and dose. Furthermore, based on these data, it may be possible, at least in parental setting, to modulate G-CSF dosage on the basis of donor characteristics.

No abstract

Predicting mobilization failure before it starts may enable patient-tailored strategies. Although consensus criteria for predicted PM (pPM) are available, their predictive performance has never been measured on real data. We retrospectively collected and analyzed 1318 mobilization procedures performed for MM and lymphoma patients in the plerixafor era. In our sample, 180/1318 (13.7%) were PM. The score resulting from published pPM criteria had sufficient performance for predicting PM, as measured by AUC (0.67, 95%CI: 0.63-0.72). We developed a new prediction model from multivariate analysis whose score (pPM-score) resulted in better AUC (0.80, 95%CI: 0.76-0.84, p < 0001). pPM-score included as risk factors: increasing age, diagnosis of NHL, positive bone marrow biopsy or cytopenias before mobilization, previous mobilization failure, priming strategy with G-CSF alone, or without upfront plerixafor. A simplified version of pPM-score was categorized using a cut-off to maximize positive likelihood ratio (15.7, 95%CI: 9.9-24.8); specificity was 98% (95%CI: 97-98.7%), sensitivity 31.7% (95%CI: 24.9-39%); positive predictive value in our sample was 71.3% (95%CI: 60-80.8%). Simplified pPM-score can "rule in" patients at very high risk for PM before starting mobilization, allowing changes in clinical management, such as choice of alternative priming strategies, to avoid highly likely mobilization failure.

SummaryHigh‐dose chemotherapy (HDT) with autologous stem cell transplantation is the standard of care for relapsed/refractory (RR) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Given that HDT may cure a sizeable proportion of patients refractory to first salvage, development of newer conditioning regimens remains a priority. We present the results of a novel HDT regimen in which carmustine was substituted by a third‐generation chloroethylnitrosourea, fotemustine, with improved pharmacokinetics and safety (FEAM; fotemustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) in 122 patients with RR‐HL accrued into a prospective registry‐based study. Application of FEAM resulted in a 2‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) of 73·8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0·64–0·81] with median PFS, overall survival and time to progression yet to be reached. The 2‐year risk of progression adjusted for the competitive risk of death was 19·4% (95% CI, 0·12–0·27) for the entire patient population. Most previously established independent risk factors, except for fluorodeoxyglucose (18 FFDG)‐uptake, were unable to predict for disease progression and survival after FEAM. Although 32% of patients had 18 FFDG‐positrin emission tomography‐positive lesions before HDT, the 2‐year risk of progression adjusted for competitive risk of death was 19·4% (95% CI; 0·12–0·27). No unusual acute toxicities or early/late pulmonary adverse events were registered. FEAM emerges as an ideal HDT regimen for RR‐HL patients typically pre‐exposed to lung‐damaging treatments.

ECP is efficacious in a high percentage of those cutaneous T-cell lymphoma patients who have circulating malignant T cells in the context of a still-near-normal immune competence. From the side of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the use of ECP showed a clinical benefit in patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD (aGVHD) and it is believed that ECP deserves to be evaluated as part of a combination strategy in first-line therapy of aGVHD. In chronic GHVD, the published data show that ECP can be effective in extensive and long-standing disease even when treatment is initiated at an advanced stage after conventional immunosuppressive and corticosteroid therapy has failed. ECP should be considered most beneficial for patients with predominantly mucocutaneous chronic GVHD. The fields of application of the procedure could be vast, and could also include autoimmune and metabolic diseases. The most important methodological issues which affect ECP evaluation is that the large majority of data about ECP result from single-arm observational series and the significant efficacy is mainly based on small and retrospective studies. ECP has never been proved to offer any survival advantage in a context of a randomized trial and the above-mentioned limitation also affects the accuracy of many biological modifications observed during ECP. Starting from these considerations, the need of a prospective randomized study becomes increasingly urgent.