Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 789

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma

Open access
DiPersio, John F., Stadtmauer, Edward A., Nademanee, Auayporn, Micallef, Ivana N. M., Stiff, Patrick J., Kaufman, Jonathan L., Maziarz, Richard T., Hosing, Chitra, Früehauf, Stefan, Horwitz, Mitchell, Cooper, Dennis, Bridger, Gary, Calandra, Gary, for the 3102 Investigators·2009·Blood

Abstract

This phase 3, multicenter, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the safety and efficacy of plerixafor with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients received G-CSF (10 μg/kg) subcutaneously daily for up to 8 days. Beginning on day 4 and continuing daily for up to 4 days, patients received either plerixafor (240 μg/kg) or placebo subcutaneously. Starting on day 5, patients began daily apheresis for up to 4 days or until more than or equal to 6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg were collected. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who collected more than or equal to 6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg in less than or equal to 2 aphereses. A total of 106 of 148 (71.6%) patients in the plerixafor group and 53 of 154 (34.4%) patients in the placebo group met the primary endpoint (P < .001). A total of 54% of plerixafor-treated patients reached target after one apheresis, whereas 56% of the placebo-treated patients required 4 aphereses to reach target. The most common adverse events related to plerixafor were gastrointestinal disorders and injection site reactions. Plerixafor and G-CSF were well tolerated, and significantly more patients collected the optimal CD34+ cell/kg target for transplantation earlier compared with G-CSF alone. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00103662.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1182/blood-2008-08-174946

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 789

Metadata

Authors
DiPersio, J. F., Stadtmauer, E. A., Nademanee, A., Micallef, I. N. M., Stiff, P. J., Kaufman, J. L., Maziarz, R. T., Hosing, C., Früehauf, S., Horwitz, M., Cooper, D., Bridger, G., Calandra, G., & for the 3102 Investigators
Venue
Blood
Published
2009-06-04
Volume
113
Issue
23
Pages
5720-5726
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2085269642
Cited by
789
References
3
FWCI
41.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2008-08-174946
The paper
DiPersio, J. F., Stadtmauer, E. A., Nademanee, A., Micallef, I. N. M., Stiff, P. J., Kaufman, J. L., Maziarz, R. T., Hosing, C., Früehauf, S., Horwitz, M., Cooper, D., Bridger, G., Calandra, G., & for the 3102 Investigators. (2009). Plerixafor and G-CSF versus placebo and G-CSF to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-08-174946

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.