BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Cited by in F6Publishing
For: Oyekunle A, Shumilov E, Kostrewa P, Burchert A, Trümper L, Wuchter P, Wulf G, Bacher U, Kröger N. Chemotherapy-Based Stem Cell Mobilization Does Not Result in Significant Paraprotein Reduction in Myeloma Patients in the Era of Novel Induction Regimens. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 2018;24:276-81. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.10.008] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
Number Citing Articles
1 Chua CC, Lim HY, Chai KL, Ong J, Sim S, Wood C, Dickinson M, Campbell P, Hempton J, King H, Dowsing C, Bergin K, Muir S, Gibbs S, Grigg A. Peripheral blood stem cell mobilisation with G-CSF alone versus G-CSF and cyclophosphamide after bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone induction in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2018;53:1116-23. [DOI: 10.1038/s41409-018-0152-2] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
2 Kriegsmann K, Schmitt A, Kriegsmann M, Bruckner T, Anyanwu A, Witzens-Harig M, Müller-Tidow C, Klein S, Wuchter P. Orchestration of Chemomobilization and G-CSF Administration for Successful Hematopoietic Stem Cell Collection.Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24:1281-1288. [PMID: 29353110 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.01.007] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
3 Bogucka-Fedorczuk A, Czyz A, Kalicińska E, Sawicki M, Laszkowska-Lewko M, Wicherska-Pawłowska K, Rybka J, Szeremet A, Prajs I, Szymczak D, Wróbel T. Higher efficacy of intermediate dose cytarabine + G-CSF compared to cyclophosphamide + G-CSF in hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Apher 2020;35:246-54. [PMID: 32298020 DOI: 10.1002/jca.21784] [Reference Citation Analysis]
4 Hari P. Chemo-Mobilization in Myeloma-Diminishing Returns in the Era of Novel Agent Induction? Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2018;24:203-4. [PMID: 29272697 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.12.781] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
5 Vaxman I, Muchtar E, Jacob E, Kapoor P, Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Buadi F, Dingli D, Gonsalves W, Kourelis T, Warsame R, Lacy M, Hogan W, Gertz MA. The Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy-Based Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma Patients Who Are Poor Responders to Induction: The Mayo Clinic Experience. Transplant Cell Ther 2021;27:770.e1-7. [PMID: 34153504 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2021.06.016] [Reference Citation Analysis]
6 Laszlo D, Marcacci GP, Martino M, Radice D, Rabascio C, Lucchetti B, Magarò A, Caime A, Menna S, Lionetti MT, Bertolini F. A comparison of chemo-free strategy with G-CSF plus plerixafor on demand versus intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF as PBSC mobilization in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: An Italian explorative cost Analysis. Transfus Apher Sci 2020;59:102819. [PMID: 32499108 DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2020.102819] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
7 Johnsrud A, Ladha A, Muffly L, Shiraz P, Goldstein G, Osgood V, Shizuru JA, Johnston L, Arai S, Weng WK, Lowsky R, Rezvani AR, Meyer EH, Frank MJ, Negrin RS, Miklos DB, Sidana S. Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma: Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Cyclophosphamide +/- Plerixafor versus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor +/- Plerixafor in the Lenalidomide Era. Transplant Cell Ther 2021;27:590.e1-8. [PMID: 33915323 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2021.04.016] [Reference Citation Analysis]
8 Zannetti BA, Saraceni F, Cellini C, Fabbri E, Monaco F, Guarini A, Laszlo D, Martino M, Olivieri A, Imola M, Tosi P, Chiarucci M, Zuffa E, Lanza F. Low-Dose Cyclophosphamide versus Intermediate-High-Dose Cyclophosphamide versus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Alone for Stem Cell Mobilization in Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Novel Agents: A Multicenter Retrospective Study. Transplant Cell Ther 2021;27:244.e1-8. [PMID: 33781522 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2020.12.009] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
9 Park Y, Kim DS, Jeon MJ, Lee B, Yu ES, Kang K, Lee SR, Sung HJ, Nam M, Yoon S, Choi CW, Kang E, Cho D, Kim K, Kim BS, Kim D, Kim SJ. Single‐dose etoposide is an effective and safe protocol for stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Apher 2019;34:579-88. [DOI: 10.1002/jca.21734] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
10 Lazzaro C, Castagna L, Lanza F, Laszlo D, Milone G, Pierelli L, Saccardi R. Chemotherapy-based versus chemotherapy-free stem cell mobilization (± plerixafor) in multiple myeloma patients: an Italian cost-effectiveness analysis. Bone Marrow Transplant 2021;56:1876-87. [PMID: 33753907 DOI: 10.1038/s41409-021-01251-8] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
11 Zhu Z, Li X, Liu Y, Chen P, Chen X, Li H, Huang J, Chen Y, Li N. High Efficacy of Stem Cell Mobilization With Etoposide+Cytarabine Plus G-CSF in Patients With Multiple Myeloma. Front Oncol 2022;12:825550. [PMID: 35155259 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.825550] [Reference Citation Analysis]