G-CSF Alone vs cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF in PBPC mobilization of patients with lymphoma: results depend on degree of previous pretreatment

Milone, Giuseppe; Leotta, Salvatore; Indelicato, Francesco; Mercurio, S; Moschetti, Gaetano; Raimondo, Francesco Di; Tornello, A; Consoli, Ugo; Guido, Giuliana; Giustolisi, Rosario

doi:10.1038/sj.bmt.1703912

Cited by 44 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[16][17][18] In our randomized study, we compared filgrastim versus lenograstim versus molgramostim plus chemotherapy to evaluate their ability to mobilize CD34 þ cells and their less commissioned precursors in the peripheral blood. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study comparing the mobilizing capacity of these three myeloid growth factors following disease-specific chemotherapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of days was less for the lenograstim arm with a median number of 12 days (range, 11-16) versus 13 days (range, 10-17) for the filgrastim arm and 14 days (range, [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] for the molgramostim arm (Po0.0001) ( Table 2). A statistically significant advantage (Po0.001) was also observed for the subgroup of chemonaive patients with a median duration of growth factor administration of 12 days (range, 10-20) with respect to pretreated patients with a median number of 14 days (range, 12-17) ( Table 3).…”

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Median duration of growth factor administration until day of apheresis was 13 days (range, [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. The number of days was less for the lenograstim arm with a median number of 12 days (range, 11-16) versus 13 days (range, 10-17) for the filgrastim arm and 14 days (range, [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] for the molgramostim arm (Po0.0001) ( Table 2).…”

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A randomized study comparing filgrastim versus lenograstim versus molgramostim plus chemotherapy for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization

Kopf

Giorgi

Vertogen

et al. 2006

Bone Marrow Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial to assess the mobilizing efficacy of filgrastim, lenograstim and molgramostim following a disease-specific chemotherapy regimen. Mobilization consisted of high-dose cyclophosphamide in 45 cases (44%), and cisplatin/ifosfamide/ etoposide or vinblastine in 22 (21%), followed by randomization to either filgrastim or lenograstim or molgramostim at 5 lg/kg/day. One hundred and three patients were randomized, and 82 (79%) performed apheresis. Forty-four (43%) patients were chemonaive, whereas 59 (57%) were pretreated. A median number of one apheresis per patient (range, 1-3) was performed. The median number of CD34 þ cells obtained after mobilization was 8.4 Â 10 6 /kg in the filgrastim arm versus 5.8 Â 10 6 /kg in the lenograstim arm versus 4.0 Â 10 6 /kg in the molgramostim arm (P ¼ 0.1). A statistically significant difference was observed for the median number of days of growth factor administration in favor of lenograstim (12 days) versus filgrastim (13 days) and molgramostim (14 days) (Po0.0001) and for the subgroup of chemonaive patients (12 days) versus pretreated patients (14 days) (Po0.001). In conclusion, all three growth factors were efficacious in mobilizing peripheral blood progenitor cells with no statistically significant difference between CD34 þ cell yield and the different regimens, and the time to apheresis is likely confounded by the different mobilization regimens.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomized study comparing filgrastim versus lenograstim versus molgramostim plus chemotherapy for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization

Kopf

Giorgi

Vertogen

et al. 2006

Bone Marrow Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13 However, one study reports that the percentage of patients achieving a minimum 2 Â 10 6 CD34 þ cells/kg is similar to those using G-CSF alone; failure rates are similar, and remobilization attempts with G-CSF with or without chemotherapy are equally likely to fail. 4 Nevertheless, G-CSF with chemotherapy may achieve more successful mobilizations in patients heavily pretreated with chemotherapy, 14 and cyclophosphamide, or etoposide, in combination with G-CSF has been used to rescue MM patients treated upfront with lenalidomide who demonstrated reduced HSC mobilization with G-CSF alone. 8,[15][16][17][18] A steep dose-response curve exists for cyclophosphamide, with myelosuppression being the dose-limiting factor.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of plerixafor in optimizing peripheral blood stem cell mobilization for autologous stem cell transplantation

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…12 The enhanced mobilization resulted in rapid and durable hematologic recovery after transplantation. Alternatively, high-dose cyclophosphamide [16][17][18] Additional treatment, e.g. with AMD3100, might then be initiated only in those patients at risk for inadequate CD34 + cell harvests in order to 27 Our patients who required more apheresis days, particularly those requiring five or more procedures, had significantly slower neutrophil recovery, slower platelet recovery, and a higher risk for failure to achieve platelet recovery within eight weeks post-transplantation.…”

Section: Mobilization Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peripheral Blood Hematopoietic Stem-cell Mobilization for Autologous Transplantation

Copelan¹,

Malik²,

Avalos³

2011

Oncology &Amp; Hematology Review (US)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TheoryAnimal studies demonstrate that hematopoietic stem cells, and not differentiated progenitors, are responsible for early hematopoietic reconstitution following autologous transplantation. Principles of Hematopoietic Stem-cell MobilizationAlthough unstimulated marrow or blood may serve as a source of stem cells for autologous transplantation, the use of 'mobilized' peripheral blood is a better source of cells and is now uniformly utilized for this purpose. The number of CD34 + cells in the blood is dramatically increased by mobilizing them from the marrow with hematopoietic growth factors. 5,6Growth factors, particularly granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor AbstractAutologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation is important in the treatment of several lymphohematopoietic malignancies. Procurement of adequate stem cells, for which CD34 positivity serves as a useful surrogate, is necessary prior to the procedure. Several methods of mobilization are widely used, but methods for individual patients should depend on their specific clinical situation. More than 20% of patients do not achieve adequate mobilization and those who require numerous aphereses to accomplish adequate CD34+ cell yield may experience delayed hematopoietic recovery.

show abstract

G-CSF Alone vs cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF in PBPC mobilization of patients with lymphoma: results depend on degree of previous pretreatment

Cited by 44 publications

References 27 publications

A randomized study comparing filgrastim versus lenograstim versus molgramostim plus chemotherapy for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization

A randomized study comparing filgrastim versus lenograstim versus molgramostim plus chemotherapy for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization

The role of plerixafor in optimizing peripheral blood stem cell mobilization for autologous stem cell transplantation

Peripheral Blood Hematopoietic Stem-cell Mobilization for Autologous Transplantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About