PURPOSE: Patient response to hematopoietic progenitor-cell mobilizing regimens seems to vary considerably, making comparison between regimens difficult. To eliminate this inter-patient variability, we designed a cross-over trial and prospectively compared the number of progenitors mobilized into blood after granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) days 1 to 12 plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) days 7 to 12 (regimen G) with the number of progenitors after cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF days 3 to 14 (regimen C) in the same patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were randomized to receive either regimen G or C first (G1 and C1, respectively) and underwent two leukaphereses. After a washout period, patients were then crossed over to the alternate regimen (C2 and G2, respectively) and underwent two additional leukaphereses. The hematopoietic progenitor-cell content of each collection was determined. In addition, toxicity and charges were tracked. RESULTS: Regimen C (n = 50) resulted in mobilization of more CD34(+) cells (2.7-fold/kg/apheresis), erythroid burst-forming units (1.8-fold/kg/apheresis), and colony-forming units-granulocyte-macrophage (2.2-fold/kg/apheresis) compared with regimen G given to the same patients (n = 46; paired t test, P<.01 for all comparisons). Compared with regimen G, regimen C resulted in better mobilization, whether it was given first (P =.025) or second (P =.02). The ability to achieve a target collection of > or =2x10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg using two leukaphereses was 50% after G1 and 90% after C1. Three of the seven patients in whom mobilization was poor after G1 had > or =2x10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg with two leukaphereses after C2. In contrast, when regimen G was given second (G2), seven out of 10 patients failed to achieve the target CD34(+) cell dose despite adequate collections after C1. Thirty percent of the patients (nine of 29) given regimen C were admitted to the hospital because of neutropenic fever for a median duration of 4 days (range, 2 to 10 days). The higher cost of regimen C was balanced by higher CD34(+) cell yield, resulting in equivalent charges based on cost per CD34(+) cell collected. CONCLUSION: We report the first clinical trial that used a cross-over design showing that high-dose cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF results in mobilization of more progenitors then GM-CSF plus G-CSF when tested in the same patient regardless of sequence of administration, although the regimen is associated with greater morbidity. Patients who fail to achieve adequate mobilization after regimen G can be treated with regimen C as an effective salvage regimen, whereas patients who fail regimen C are unlikely to benefit from subsequent treatment with regimen G. The cross-over design allowed detection of significant differences between regimens in a small cohort of patients and should be considered in design of future comparisons of mobilization regimens.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Patient response to hematopoietic progenitor-cell mobilizing regimens seems to vary considerably, making comparison between regimens difficult. To eliminate this inter-patient variability, we designed a cross-over trial and prospectively compared the number of progenitors mobilized into blood after granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) days 1 to 12 plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) days 7 to 12 (regimen G) with the number of progenitors after cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF days 3 to 14 (regimen C) in the same patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were randomized to receive either regimen G or C first (G1 and C1, respectively) and underwent two leukaphereses. After a washout period, patients were then crossed over to the alternate regimen (C2 and G2, respectively) and underwent two additional leukaphereses. The hematopoietic progenitor-cell content of each collection was determined. In addition, toxicity and charges were tracked. RESULTS: Regimen C (n = 50) resulted in mobilization of more CD34(+) cells (2.7-fold/kg/apheresis), erythroid burst-forming units (1.8-fold/kg/apheresis), and colony-forming units-granulocyte-macrophage (2.2-fold/kg/apheresis) compared with regimen G given to the same patients (n = 46; paired t test, P<.01 for all comparisons). Compared with regimen G, regimen C resulted in better mobilization, whether it was given first (P =.025) or second (P =.02). The ability to achieve a target collection of > or =2x10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg using two leukaphereses was 50% after G1 and 90% after C1. Three of the seven patients in whom mobilization was poor after G1 had > or =2x10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg with two leukaphereses after C2. In contrast, when regimen G was given second (G2), seven out of 10 patients failed to achieve the target CD34(+) cell dose despite adequate collections after C1. Thirty percent of the patients (nine of 29) given regimen C were admitted to the hospital because of neutropenic fever for a median duration of 4 days (range, 2 to 10 days). The higher cost of regimen C was balanced by higher CD34(+) cell yield, resulting in equivalent charges based on cost per CD34(+) cell collected. CONCLUSION: We report the first clinical trial that used a cross-over design showing that high-dose cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF results in mobilization of more progenitors then GM-CSF plus G-CSF when tested in the same patient regardless of sequence of administration, although the regimen is associated with greater morbidity. Patients who fail to achieve adequate mobilization after regimen G can be treated with regimen C as an effective salvage regimen, whereas patients who fail regimen C are unlikely to benefit from subsequent treatment with regimen G. The cross-over design allowed detection of significant differences between regimens in a small cohort of patients and should be considered in design of future comparisons of mobilization regimens.
Authors: P Quittet; P Ceballos; E Lopez; Z Y Lu; P Latry; C Becht; E Legouffe; N Fegueux; C Exbrayat; D Pouessel; V Rouillé; J P Daures; B Klein; J F Rossi Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: K E Herbert; L Demosthenous; G Wiesner; E Link; D A Westerman; N Came; D S Ritchie; S Harrison; J F Seymour; H M Prince Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: A Olivieri; M Marchetti; R Lemoli; C Tarella; A Iacone; F Lanza; A Rambaldi; A Bosi Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2011-05-30 Impact factor: 5.483