First 100 days outcomes of cryopreserved vs non-cryopreserved stem cells autologous bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma - a single center experience
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To compare the first 100 days' outcomes of autologous stem cell transplantation (Auto-BMT) using cryopreserved versus non-cryopreserved grafts in multiple myeloma (MM) patients.
Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted at a bone marrow transplant center in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from March 2023 to March 2024. MM patients in stringent complete remission or complete remission per International Myeloma Working Group criteria were included. Patients were divided into two groups: those receiving non-cryopreserved stem cells and those receiving cryopreserved stem cells. Stem cell mobilization, collection, and preservation followed standardized protocols, with CD34+ counts and viability assessed pre-infusion. Data on patient demographics, disease characteristics, engraftment times, transplant-related complications, hospital stay duration, and outcomes at Day+100 post-transplant were collected and analyzed using SPSS 23.0.
Results: The non-cryopreserved group had a higher mean CD34 dose (5.22 × 10⁶/l vs. 4.78 × 10⁶/l), superior cell viability (93% vs. 84%, p<0.01), faster neutrophil engraftment (12 vs. 14 days, p<0.01), and shorter hospital stays (15 vs. 16 days, p=0.03). Febrile neutropenia was universal in the cryopreserved group but affected 78.6% in the cryopreserved group. Gut toxicity was more frequent in the cryopreserved group (78.6% vs. 66.7%; p>0.05). Mucositis incidence was higher in the cryopreserved group (64% vs. 17%,). Both groups achieved complete remission by Day+100, with no mortality or relapse.
Conclusion: NC stem cell grafts offer comparable efficacy to CryoP grafts while reducing costs and enhancing outcomes, particularly for engraftment speed and hospital stay duration. These findings support the adoption of NC protocols in resource-limited settings.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Work published in KMUJ is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online
(e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
1. Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk‐stratification, and management. Am J Hematol 2024;28;ajh.27422. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.27422
2. Al Hamed R, Bazarbachi AH, Malard F, Harousseau JL, Mohty M. Current status of autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J 2019;8;9(4):44. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-019-0205-9
3. Kulkarni U, Devasia AJ, Korula A, Fouzia N, Nisham P, Samoon YJ, et al. Use of Non-Cryopreserved Peripheral Blood Stem Cells Is Associated with Adequate Engraftment in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Undergoing an Autologous Transplant. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2018;24(12):e31-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.08.007
4. Sarmiento M, Ramírez P, Parody R, Salas Mq, Beffermann N, Jara V, et al. Advantages of non-cryopreserved autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation against a cryopreserved strategy. Bone Marrow Transplant 2018;53(8):960-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-018-0117-5
5. Durie BGM, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, Bladé J, Barlogie B, Anderson K, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006;20(9):1467-73. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.leu.2404284
6. Hutt D. Engraftment, Graft Failure, and Rejection. In: Kenyon M, Babic A, editors. The European Blood and Marrow Transplantation Textbook for Nurses [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018 pp. 259-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50026-3_13
7. Villafuerte-Gutierrez P, Villalon L, Losa JE, Henriquez-Camacho C. Treatment of Febrile Neutropenia and Prophylaxis in Hematologic Malignancies: A Critical Review and Update. Adv Hematol 2014;2014:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/986938
8. Nagi R, Patil DJ, Rakesh N, Jain S, Sahu S. Natural agents in the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients-systematic review. J Oral Biol Craniofacial Res 2018;8(3):245-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.12.003
9. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). 2017. Accessed on: July 02, 2024. Available from URL: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcae_v5_quick_reference_5x7.pdf
10. Noiperm P, Julamanee J, Viboonjuntra P, Lekhakula A. Non-Cryopreserved Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Graft for Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma and Lymphoma Patients. Ann Transplant 2023;28:e938595. https://doi.org/10.12659/AOT.938595
11. Valentini CG, Pellegrino C, Teofili L. Pros and Cons of Cryopreserving Allogeneic Stem Cell Products Cells. 2024;21;13(6):552. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells13060552
12. Piriyakhuntorn P, Tantiworawit A, Rattanathammethee T, Hantrakool S, Chai-Adisaksopha C, Rattarittamrong E, et al. Outcomes of Non-Cryopreserved Versus Cryopreserved Peripheral Blood Stem Cells for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma. Ann Transplant 2020;25:e927084. https://doi.org/10.12659/AOT.927084
13. Pessoa. Cryopreserved versus non-cryopreserved stem cell autografts in multiple myeloma a retrospective cohort study. Bone Marrow Transplantation 2022;57:1313-8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-022-01718-2
14. Araújo AB, Soares TB, Schmalfuss T, Angeli MH, Furlan JM, Salton GD, et al. Non‐cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells as a safe and effective alternative for autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma. Transfusion (Paris) 2022;62(10):1967-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.17090
15. Bittencourt MCB, Mariano L, Moreira F, Schmidt-Filho J, Mendrone-Jr A, Rocha V. Cryopreserved versus non-cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells for autologous transplantation after high-dose Melphalan in multiple myeloma: comparative analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant 2019;54(1):138-41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-018-0250-1