Literature DB >> 9422470

Randomized comparison of G-CSF + GM-CSF vs G-CSF alone for mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells: effects on hematopoietic recovery after high-dose chemotherapy.

G Spitzer1, D Adkins, M Mathews, W Velasquez, C Bowers, F Dunphy, N Kronmueller, R Niemeyer, W McIntyre, P Petruska.   

Abstract

Fifty patients with either lymphoid or selected solid tumor malignancies were apheresed an identical number of times for PBSC collection after being randomized to receive either G-CSF 10 microg/kg/day alone (arm I), or G-CSF at the same dose with GM-CSF 5 microg/kg/day (arm II). Growth factor(s) was/were given as the stem cell mobilizing agent for 5 days before the start of PBSC collection, and were continued throughout the 4 days of apheresis. Aspiration and cryopreservation of autologous bone marrow occurred on day 3 or 4 of growth factor(s). Thirty-one of 50 patients received one cycle only at time of evaluation, and 19 patients received two cycles of HDCT, each supported with PBSC with or without autologous bone marrow. No patients received growth factors post-autologous stem cell transplant, unless the absolute neutrophils count (ANC) failed to recover to > or = 100/microl by day +18 post-transplant. The median number of days to recovery of ANC to 100/microl, 500/microl and 1000/microl, and of platelet counts to 20000/microl, 50000/microl and 100000/microl after either cycle 1 or cycle 2 of HDCT and the number of febrile days and platelet and PRBC transfusion requirements was not significantly different between the two arms of the study. The duration of hospitalization was similar between study arms for cycle 1 of HDCT, but was 3.5 days less with arm II compared to arm I (P = 0.0248) for cycle 2 of HDCT. The bone marrow buffy coat and PBSC product mononuclear cell count (x 10(8)/kg) and CD34+ cell count (x 10(6)/kg) collected by each method of stem cell mobilization was not significantly different. There is questionable clinical benefit with PBSC products mobilized with the combination of G-CSF and GM-CSF vs G-CSF alone. Perhaps different dosages, schedules, or other growth factor combinations with G-CSF might enhance these differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9422470     DOI: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1700999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant        ISSN: 0268-3369            Impact factor:   5.483


  9 in total

1.  The proinflammatory cytokine GM-CSF downregulates fetal hemoglobin expression by attenuating the cAMP-dependent pathway in sickle cell disease.

Authors:  Tohru Ikuta; Adekunle D Adekile; Diana R Gutsaeva; James B Parkerson; Shobha D Yerigenahally; Betsy Clair; Abdullah Kutlar; Nadine Odo; C Alvin Head
Journal:  Blood Cells Mol Dis       Date:  2011-09-25       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization: new regimens, new cells, where do we stand.

Authors:  Louis M Pelus
Journal:  Curr Opin Hematol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.284

3.  Low doses of GM-CSF (molgramostim) and G-CSF (filgrastim) after cyclophosphamide (4 g/m2) enhance the peripheral blood progenitor cell harvest: results of two randomized studies including 120 patients.

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

Review 4.  The role of colony-stimulating factors and granulocyte transfusion in treatment options for neutropenia in children with cancer.

Authors:  Der-Cherng Liang
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.022

Review 5.  G-CSF and GM-CSF as therapeutic targets in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Ann L Cornish; Ian K Campbell; Brent S McKenzie; Simon Chatfield; Ian P Wicks
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 20.543

6.  Proposed definition of 'poor mobilizer' in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: an analytic hierarchy process by ad hoc working group Gruppo ItalianoTrapianto di Midollo Osseo.

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

7.  Intravenous delivery of granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor impairs survival in lipopolysaccharide-induced sepsis.

Authors:  Jörg Krebs; Alexander Hillenbrand; Charalambos Tsagogiorgas; Christian Patry; Burkhard Tönshoff; Benito Yard; Grietje Beck; Neysan Rafat
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Extracellular Matrix-Based Biomaterials for Cardiovascular Tissue Engineering.

Authors:  Astha Khanna; Maedeh Zamani; Ngan F Huang
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Dev Dis       Date:  2021-10-22

Review 9.  Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: Growth factors or chemotherapy?

Authors:  Whitney D Wallis; Muzaffar H Qazilbash
Journal:  World J Transplant       Date:  2017-10-24
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.