A randomized trial of mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells with cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with or without cisplatin in patients with malignant lymphoma receiving high-dose chemotherapy

Efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Efficient mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from bone marrow niche into circulation is the key to successful collection and transplantation in patients with hematological malignancies. The efficacy of various HSCs mobilization regimens has been widely investigated, but the results are inconsistent.

Methods

We performed comprehensive databases searching for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that comparing the efficacy of HSCs mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with WinBUGS. Standard dose of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF SD) was chosen as the common comparator. Estimates of relative treatment effects for other regimens were reported as mean differences (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with associated 95% credibility interval (95% CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were obtained to present rank probabilities of all included regimens.

Results

Databases searching and study selection identified 44 eligible RCTs, of which the mobilization results are summarized. Then we compared the efficacy of mobilization regimens separately for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) by including 13 eligible trials for network meta-analysis, involving 638 patients with MM and 592 patients with NHL. For patients with MM, data are pooled from 8 trials for 6 regimens, including G-CSF in standard dose (SD) or reduced dose (RD) combined with cyclophosphamide (CY), intermediate-dose cytarabine (ID-AraC) or plerixafor. The results show that compared with G-CSF SD alone, 3 regimens including ID-AraC + G-CSF SD (MD 14.29, 95% CrI 9.99–18.53; SUCRA 1.00), G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD (MD 4.15, 95% CrI 2.92–5.39; SUCRA 0.80), and CY + G-CSF RD (MD 1.18, 95% CrI 0.29–2.07; SUCRA 0.60) are associated with significantly increased total number of collected CD34⁺ cells (× 10⁶/kg), among which ID-AraC + G-CSF SD ranked first with a probability of being best regimen of 100%. Moreover, ID-AraC + G-CSF SD and G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD are associated with significantly higher successful rate of achieving optimal target (collecting ≥ 4–6 × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg). For patients with NHL, data are pooled from 5 trials for 4 regimens, the results show that compared with G-CSF SD alone, G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD (MD 3.62, 95% CrI 2.86–4.38; SUCRA 0.81) and G-CSF SD plus the new CXC chemokine receptor-4 (CXCR-4) antagonist YF-H-2015005 (MD 3.43, 95% CrI 2.51–4.35; SUCRA 0.69) are associated with significantly higher number of total CD34⁺ cells collected. These 2 regimens are also associated with significantly higher successful rate of achieving optimal target. There are no significant differences in rate of achieving optimal target between G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD and G-CSF + YF-H-2015005.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ID-AraC plus G-CSF is associated with the highest probability of being best mobilization regimen in patients with MM. For patients with NHL, G-CSF in combination with plerixafor or YF-H-2015005 showed similar improvements in HSCs mobilization efficacy. The relative effects of other chemotherapy-based mobilization regimens still require to be determined with further investigations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13287-022-02802-6.

Incidence of late onset neutropenia associated with rituximab use in B cell lymphoma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation

Reversible late onset neutropenia associated with rituximab has been reported with incidence rates varying from 15 to 70% in B cell lymphoma patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation. We conducted a retrospective descriptive study at one tertiary care center in adult B cell lymphoma patients treated with rituximab and autologous stem cell transplantation between 1 January 2004 and 30 June 2014. Late onset neutropenia was defined as an absolute neutrophil count <1.0 × 109 cells/L after neutrophil engraftment and less than six months post autologous stem cell transplantation. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of late onset neutropenia. The secondary objectives were to examine whether the use of rituximab with re-induction therapy, mobilization or high dose chemotherapy regimens increased the risk for late onset neutropenia, and to evaluate infectious complications. Of 315 subjects, 92 (29.2%) developed late onset neutropenia. Mobilization regimens containing rituximab (OR 2.90 95% CI: 1.31–6.40), high dose chemotherapy containing rituximab (OR 1.87 95% CI: 1.14–3.05), and exposure to rituximab in either or both regimens (OR 3.05 95% CI: 1.36–6.88) significantly increased the risk of late onset neutropenia. While neutropenic, 17.4% experienced an infection, 7.6% experienced febrile neutropenia, and 5.4% were hospitalized. In conclusion, rituximab with mobilization or high dose chemotherapy may increase the risk of late onset neutropenia post autologous stem cell transplantation.

Modified CVAD and modified CBAD compared to high-dose cyclophosphamide for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

The optimal regimen for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HCT) has not been established. Experience at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center suggests in addition to single-agent cyclophosphamide (Cy), modified cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (mCVAD), and modified cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (mCBAD) may be successful chemomobilization regimens.

METHODS

This retrospective review included 167 patients (66 with Cy, 74 with mCVAD, and 27 with mCBAD) with multiple myeloma undergoing mobilization for auto-HCT between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2013. The primary objective was to evaluate and compare the successful mobilization of CD34+ cells among high-dose Cy, mCVAD or mCBAD.

RESULTS

Successful mobilization (≥2×10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg) was achieved in all patients, while 65 (98%), 72 (97%), and 27 (100%) patients achieved an optimal mobilization (≥4×10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg) in the Cy, mCVAD, and mCBAD groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the number of apheresis sessions (P=.63), incidence of febrile neutropenia (P=.57), or hospital admission rates (P=.55).

CONCLUSION

Either Cy, mCVAD, or mCBAD can yield successful PBSC mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing auto-HCT.

Comparative effectiveness analysis of different salvage therapy intensities used for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Northern or Southern Alberta: an instrumental variable analysis

To date, no clinical trial has addressed salvage therapy intensity for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We sought to determine whether the more intensive salvage chemotherapy approach used in Southern Alberta (SAB) compared to the conventional dose salvage approach used in Northern Alberta (NAB) affects the rates of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and survival in patients with relapsed DLBCL. Using instrumental variable analysis, we examined 147 consecutive patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL from 2004 to 2010 who received salvage therapy in SAB (n = 70) or NAB (n = 77). Patients treated in SAB had higher rates of: salvage chemotherapy response (85.0% vs. 54.0%, p = 0.001), ASCT (61.4% vs. 41.6%, p = 0.016) and 4-year overall survival (41% vs. 20%, p = 0.002) than those in NAB, respectively. This study supports the hypothesis that selective use of intensive salvage chemotherapy leads to higher rates of ASCT and survival in this population.

Peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and collection efficacy is not an independent prognostic factor for autologous stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

The successful mobilization and collection of hematopoietic stem cells are dependent on a number of clinical factors such as previous chemotherapy and disease stage. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether the effectiveness of mobilization and collection is an independent prognostic factor for autologous stem cell transplantation outcome.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 358 patients who received transplants from January 2003 to December 2004 (201 male and 157 female patients, ages from 2.7 to 77.3 years with median of 53 years of age) underwent autologous hematopoietic stem cell collection after mobilization with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or G-CSF plus chemotherapy priming. This retrospective study included patients with diagnoses of acute myelogenous leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, and solid tumors. All patients underwent stem cell collection until a target or a minimum CD34+ cell dose was reached. Correlations were performed between stem cell mobilization and/or collection efficacy and transplantation outcomes.

RESULTS

In general, both larger reinfused CD34+ cell dose and shorter number of days for the stem cell count to reach the minimum of 2 x 10(6) per kg CD34+ cells do not foster quicker engraftment. Reinfused CD34+ cell dose of less than 12 x 10(6) and number of days stem cell collection to reach this minimum CD34+ cell dose did not independently affect the overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS).

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and collection as defined as number of days to reach a CD34+ cell dose of 2 x 10(6) per kg should not be used independently to forecast posttransplantation prognosis, engraftment, DFS, and OS.

Nonmyeloablative unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation to treat patients with poor-risk, relapsed, or refractory multiple myeloma

The purpose of this study was to determine long-term outcome of unrelated donor nonmyeloablative hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in patients with poor-risk multiple myeloma. A total of 24 patients were enrolled; 17 patients (71%) had chemotherapy-refractory disease, and 14 (58%) experienced disease relapse or progression after previous autologous transplantation. Thirteen patients underwent planned autologous transplantation followed 43-135 days later with unrelated transplantation, whereas 11 proceeded directly to unrelated transplantation. All 24 patients were treated with fludarabine (90 mg/m(2)) and 2 Gy of total body irradiation before HLA-matched unrelated peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Postgrafting immunosuppression consisted of cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil. The median follow-up was 3 years after allografting. One patient experienced nonfatal graft rejection. The incidences of acute grades II and III and chronic graft-versus-host disease were 54%, 13%, and 75%, respectively. The 3-year nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 21%. Complete responses were observed in 10 patients (42%); partial responses, in 4 (17%). At 3 years, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 61% and 33%, respectively. Patients receiving tandem autologous-unrelated transplantation had superior OS and PFS (77% and 51%) compared with patients proceeding directly to unrelated donor transplantation (44% and 11%) (PFS P value = .03). In summary, for patients with poor-risk, relapsed, or refractory multiple myeloma, cytoreductive autologous HCT followed by nonmyeloablative conditioning and unrelated HCT is an effective treatment approach, with low NRM, high complete remission rates, and prolonged disease-free survival.

Cytoreduction of lymphoid malignancies and mobilization of blood hematopoietic progenitor cells with high doses of cyclophosphamide and etoposide plus filgrastim

We evaluated the efficiency of high doses of cyclophosphamide (6 g/m2) and etoposide (2 g/m2) plus filgrastim (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; G-CSF) to mobilize autologous hematopoietic progenitor cells in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. We also evaluated the safety of this regimen and the engraftment kinetics after myeloablative chemotherapy. Seventy-nine patients with high-risk or relapsed/primary refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, or Waldenström macroglobulinemia were treated. The mobilizing regimen was as follows: cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 twice daily for 10 doses, etoposide 200 mg/m2 twice daily for 10 doses (continuous; n=57) or 2 g/m2 over 10 hours on day 5 of etoposide (bolus; n=22), and G-CSF 5 microg/kg/d beginning day 14. Fifty-nine percent of patients achieved the primary end point (a CD34 cell dose of 5 million per kilogram with a single leukapheresis). More bolus etoposide patients achieved the primary end point (86%) compared with continuous etoposide patients (47%; P<.0001). The CD34 cell dose collected was greater in bolus etoposide patients (44 million per kilogram) than in continuous etoposide patients (10.9 million per kilogram; P<.0001). Patients took 3 weeks to recover >500/microL neutrophils and >20000/microL platelets after cyclophosphamide and etoposide. The overall response rate was 69% for non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients and 71% for multiple myeloma/Waldenström macroglobulinemia patients. The treatment-related mortality was 2.5%. Sixteen percent of surviving patients experienced grade>or=3 nonhematologic toxicity. Patients receiving bolus etoposide had significantly less grade>or=2 oral mucositis, less use of total parenteral nutrition, and less need for red blood cell and platelet transfusions. Sixty-four patients (81%) underwent autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation, with prompt engraftment. Four patients (5%) did not undergo autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation because of toxicity from high-dose cyclophosphamide and etoposide. We conclude that high doses of cyclophosphamide and etoposide combined with G-CSF are an efficient and safe mobilizing regimen for the collection of hematopoietic progenitor cells during aggressive cytoreduction of tumor burden in patients with lymphoid malignancies.

Impact of chemotherapy regimen and hematopoietic growth factor on mobilization and collection of peripheral blood stem cells in cancer patients

Various chemotherapy regimens, combined with recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor(rhG-CSF) or recombinant granulocyte-macrophage CSF (rhGM-CSF) are used in cancer patients to mobilize and collect peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC). In this retrospective study, we evaluated and compared the efficacy of such regimens in 262 patients with different types of malignant diseases. The following chemotherapy regimens were applied: ifosfamide-etoposide-cisplatin or bleomycin (n = 96; mainly patients with testicular cancer); ifosfamide-etoposide plus or minus cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C) or vincristine (VCR)(n = 52; mainly patients with lymphoma); cyclophosphamide-anthracycline (n = 53; mainly patients with breast cancer); intermediate to high dose (ID-HD) cyclophosphamide (n = 37; mainly patients with breast or ovarian cancer. or multiple myeloma; and others (n = 24). rhG-CSF or rhGM-CSF, each at an average daily dose of 5 microg/kg body weight, were used in 166 and 96 patients, respectively. The study evaluated and compared the efficacy of these two cytokines. In patients receiving rhG-CSF, CD34+ cells could be collected earlier (median: day 14 versus day 16) and there was a significantly higher white blood cell count (WBC)(median 11,350 versus 5550/microl) and CD34+ cell count (median 88 versus 43/microl) at the start of apheresis, and a significantly higher CD34+ cell yield (median 7.4 x 10(6) versus 4.6 x 10(6)/kg) than in patients who receivedrhGM-CSF. Among the various chemotherapeutic regimens used, each combined with rhG-CSF, ifosfamide-etoposide plus or minus Ara-C or VCR mobilized a significantly higher number of CD34+ cells (median 119/microl) and produced a significantly higher harvest of these cells (median 13 x 10(6)/kg) than cyclophosphamide-anthracycline (median 87/microl and 7 x 10(6)/kg, respectively) or ID-HD cyclophosphamide (median 59/microl and 5 x I 0(6)/kg, respectively). Ifosfamide-etoposide plus or minus Ara-C or VCR was also superior to ifosfamide-etoposide-cisplatin or bleomycin (median 78/microl and 9 x 10(6)/kg, respectively), but at borderline significance. The outcome of PBSC mobilization and collection appeared to be negatively influenced by the number of relapses before the current salvage treatment. These data indicate that mobilization and collection of PBSCstrongly depend on the type of hematopoietic growth factor and chemotherapeutic regimen used. The data further show rhG-CSF is a more effective growth factor than rhGM-CSF and ifosfamide-etoposide-based regimens, particularly ifosfamide-etoposide plus or minus Ara-C or VCR, are highly effective regimens in mobilizing and collecting CD34+ cells.

Collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells: analysis of factors predicting the yields

We retrospectively analyzed data on 628 leukapheresis from 160 consecutive patients with hematologic or solid malignancies to identify predictive factors affecting the achievement of optimal peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) collection, which was defined as > or = 5x10(6) CD34+ cells/kg. In univariate analysis, a diagnosis of multiple myeloma, no prior axial skeletal radiotherapy, absence of exposure to alkylating agents and cisplatin, fewer cycles of chemotherapy, and fewer number of previous chemotherapy regimens favored the achievement of target number of PBPC. In multivariate analysis, the absence of prior exposure to alkylating agents, especially cyclophosphamide, (P=0.003, RR=2.08) and cisplatin (P=0.015, RR=2.50) were independent predicting factors affecting the probability of achieving the target PBPC and the time to reach the target PBPC collection. In addition, the total dose of cyclophosphamide the patient received significantly alters the mobilization.

Colony-stimulating factors for the management of neutropenia in cancer patients

Neutropenia and its subsequent infectious complications represent the most common dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs with common chemotherapy regimens in 25 to 40% of treatment-naive patients, and its severity depends on the dose intensity of the chemotherapy regimen, the patient's prior history of either radiation therapy or use of cytotoxic treatment, and comorbidities. The occurrence of FN often causes subsequent chemotherapy delays or dose reductions. It may also lengthen hospital stay, increase monitoring, diagnostic and treatment costs, and reduce patient quality of life. A decade after their introduction, colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) are now an integral part of the prevention of potentially life-threatening FN; however, only G-CSF has US Food and Drug Administration approval for use in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. These adjunctive agents accelerate formation of neutrophils from committed progenitors, thereby reducing the duration and severity of neutropenia. Important uses of CSFs in oncology are prevention of FN after chemotherapy, treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes and support following bone marrow transplantation, and collection of CSF-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cells. G-CSF is used more frequently than GM-CSF for all of these indications because of fewer associated adverse effects. Clinical trials to date have not demonstrated a significant effect on overall survival or disease-free survival, which is most likely to be due to small sample size and lack of power to prove effect. However, they have demonstrated clinical utility in allowing the delivery of planned chemotherapy dose on schedule, an important clinical goal especially in curative tumour settings. The high cost of these agents limits their widespread use. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis, or first cycle use, with CSFs being confined to patients with > or = 40% risk of FN, which may include elderly patients and other high-risk patients. In addition to the risk of FN, primary prophylaxis should also be considered if the patient has risk factors that place them in the Special Circumstances category. These risk factors may include decreased immune function in patients who are already at an increased risk of infection and pre-existing neutropenia due to disease, extensive prior chemotherapy, or previous irradiation to the pelvis or other areas containing large amounts of bone marrow. Future studies are needed to better define the patients most likely to benefit from CSF therapy, both for prophylaxis and as an adjunct to antibiotics for treatment of FN. Other potential uses include combination therapy with stem cell factors and other cytokines to boost progenitor cell development, maintaining dose intensity of salvage therapy in metastatic cancer patients, and application in patients with pneumonia, Crohn's fistulas, diabetic foot infections and a variety of other infectious conditions.

Cyclophosphamide, etoposide and G-CSF to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma

We aimed to assess the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide, etoposide and G-CSF (C+E) to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma. A matched cohort study was performed comparing patients mobilized with C+E to patients mobilized with cyclophosphamide and G-CSF (C alone). Patients were matched for disease, prior radiotherapy and a chemotherapy score reflecting the amount and type of prior chemotherapy. Thirty-eight consecutive patients mobilized with C+E were compared with 38 matched controls. C+E was equivalent to C alone in terms of numbers of patients achieving a minimum threshold of > or =2 x 10(6)/kg CD34(+)cells (82% vs 79%, P = 0.74). C+E was superior, however, in terms of total CD34(+) yield (6.35 vs 3.3 x 10(6)/kg, P < 0.01), achieving a target graft of > or =5 x 10(6)/kg (55% vs 34%, P = 0.04) and obtaining both a minimum (61% vs 32%, P < 0.01) and target (45% vs 13%, P < 0.01) graft in one apheresis. This superiority was largely confined to patients with lower chemotherapy scores. There was no difference in neutrophil and platelet recovery or transfusion requirements for those who subsequently received high-dose therapy and stem cell transplantation. Thus, C+E improves the efficiency of peripheral blood stem cell collection, but does not increase the number of patients who can proceed to transplantation. Most of the benefit of the regimen was confined to patients who had not received extensive prior therapy. Novel strategies are required to increase the collection efficiency of 'hard to mobilize' patients.

Economic evaluation of filgrastim, sargramostim, and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim after myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Filgrastim alone and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim have been shown to be more effective than sargramostim alone in the mobilization of CD34(+) cells after myelosuppressive chemotherapy (MC). We sought to compare costs and resource use associated with these regimens. Data were collected prospectively alongside a multicenter, randomized trial of filgrastim, sargramostim, and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim. Direct medical costs were calculated for inpatient and outpatient visits and procedures, including administration of growth factors and MC. We followed 156 patients for 30 days or until initiation of high-dose chemotherapy. The main outcome measures were resource use and costs of inpatient and outpatient visits, platelet and red blood cell transfusions, antibiotic use, and apheresis procedures. Hospital admissions, red blood cell transfusions, and use of i.v. antibiotics were significantly more common in the sargramostim group than in the other treatment arms. In univariate and multivariable analyses, total costs were higher for patients receiving sargramostim alone than for patients in the other groups. Mean costs in multivariable analysis for the filgrastim and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim arms were not significantly different. Filgrastim alone and sequential sargramostim and filgrastim are less costly than sargramostim alone after MC, as well as therapeutically more beneficial.

High-Dose Chemotherapy with Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Support for Operable Locally Advanced Noninflammatory Carcinoma of the Breast

The purpose of this study was to determine outcomes for patients with operable noninflammatory stage IIIA/B locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) with positive axillary lymph nodes receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support. One hundred fifteen patients with LABC who were no evidence of disease (NED) after initial surgery received standard dose induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy for mobilization of PBSC, and high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin with PBSC support for adjuvant therapy. Following hematopoietic recovery, all patients were scheduled to receive radiation therapy and tamoxifen was administered if the primary tumor was estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) positive. Eighty-eight percent of patients were admitted to the hospital following HDC for a median of 11 days (range 3-26) and 12% were treated entirely as outpatients. There was one treatment-related death (0.9%) from infection occurring on day 8 after HDC. Forty-four (38%) have relapsed at a median of 20 months (range 10-55) from diagnosis, 11 (10%) with local-regional and 33 (28%) with metastatic disease. The probabilities of overall (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) for all 115 patients at 3 years were 0.73 and 0.61, respectively, with a median follow-up of 42 months (range 10-89) from diagnosis. In univariate and multivariate analyses, no factors could be identified that were statistically predictive for OS or EFS. However, there were trends for patients with ER/PR-negative primary tumors to have worse OS (p = 0.16) and EFS (p = 0.10) than patients with ER/PR-positive tumors. This adjuvant combined modality strategy incorporating HDC is safe and compares favorably to historical studies of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment for LABC. Further attempts to improve outcomes of patients with LABC receiving HDC are warranted.

Mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells following myelosuppressive chemotherapy: a randomized comparison of filgrastim, sargramostim, or sequential sargramostim and filgrastim

Myelosuppressive chemotherapy is frequently used for mobilization of autologous CD34(+) progenitor cells into the peripheral blood for subsequent collection and support of high-dose chemotherapy. The administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy is typically followed by a myeloid growth factor and is associated with variable CD34 cell yields and morbidity. The two most commonly used myeloid growth factors for facilitation of CD34 cell harvests are granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). We performed a randomized phase III clinical trial comparing G-CSF, GM-CSF, and sequential administration of GM-CSF and G-CSF following administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We evaluated CD34 yields, morbidity, and cost-effectiveness of the three cytokine schedules. One hundred and fifty-six patients with multiple myeloma, breast cancer, or lymphoma received cyclophosphamide with either paclitaxel or etoposide and were randomized to receive G-CSF 6 microg/kg/day s.c., GM-CSF 250 microg/m(2)/day s.c., or GM-CSF for 6 days followed by G-CSF until completion of the stem cell harvest. Compared with patients who received GM-CSF, patients who received G-CSF had faster recovery of absolute neutrophil count to 0.5 x 10(9) per liter (median of 11 vs14 days, P = 0.0001) with fewer patients requiring red blood cell transfusions (P= 0.008); fewer patients with fever (18% vs 52%, P = 0.001); fewer hospital admissions (20% vs 42%, P = 0.13); and less intravenous antibiotic therapy (24% vs 59%, P = 0.001). Patients who received G-CSF also yielded more CD34 cells (median 7.1 vs 2.0 x 10(6) kg per apheresis, P = 0.0001) and a higher percentage achieved 2.5 x 10(6) CD34 cells per kilogram (94% vs 78%, P = 0.21) and 5 x 10(6) CD34 cells per kilogram (88% vs 53%, P = 0.01) or more CD34 cells per kilogram with fewer aphereses (median 2 vs 3, P = 0.002) and fewer days of growth factor treatment (median 12 vs 14, P = 0.0001). There were no significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving G-CSF alone and the sequential regimen. After high-dose chemotherapy, patients who had peripheral blood stem cells mobilized with G-CSF or the sequential regimen received higher numbers of CD34 cells and had faster platelet recovery with fewer patients requiring platelet transfusions than patients receiving peripheral blood stem cells mobilized by GM-CSF. In summary, G-CSF alone is superior to GM-CSF alone for the mobilization of CD34(+) cells and reduction of toxicities following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. An economic analysis evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these three effective schedules is ongoing at the time of this writing.

Randomized trial of filgrastim, sargramostim, or sequential sargramostim and filgrastim after myelosuppressive chemotherapy for the harvesting of peripheral-blood stem cells

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of filgrastim, sargramostim, or sequential sargramostim and filgrastim on CD34(+) cell yields and morbidity after myelosuppressive mobilization chemotherapy (MC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred fifty-six patients were randomized to receive filgrastim (n = 51), sargramostim (n = 52), or sargramostim for 5 days followed by filgrastim (n = 53) after MC with either cyclophosphamide and etoposide (n = 75) or paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide (n = 81).

RESULTS

Compared with those who received sargramostim, patients who received filgrastim had faster recovery of an absolute neutrophil count of 0.5 x 10(9)/L or greater (a median of 11 v 14 days; P =. 0001), with fewer patients requiring RBC transfusions (P =.008), fewer patients with fever (18% v 52%; P = 0.001), fewer hospital admissions (20% v 42%; P =.013), and less intravenous antibiotic therapy (24% v 69%; P =.001). Patients who received filgrastim yielded more CD34(+) cells (median, 7.1 v 2.0 x 10(6)/kg/apheresis; P =.0001), and a higher fraction achieved 2.5 x 10(6) (94% v 78%; P =.021) and 5 x 10(6) (88% v 53%; P =.001) or more CD34(+) cells/kg with fewer aphereses (median, 2 v 3; P =.002) and fewer days of growth-factor treatment (median, 12 v 14; P =.0001). There were no major differences in outcomes between the filgrastim alone and the sequential regimens. After high-dose chemotherapy, patients who had peripheral-blood stem cells (PBSCs) mobilized with filgrastim or the sequential regimen received higher numbers of CD34(+) cells and had faster platelet recovery (P =.015), with fewer patients (P =.014) receiving fewer platelet transfusions (P =.001) than patients receiving sargramostim-mobilized PBSCs.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that filgrastim alone or sequential sargramostim and filgrastim were superior to sargramostim alone for the mobilization of CD34(+) cells and reduction of toxicities after MC.

Successful rechallenge with etoposide phosphate after an acute hypersensitivity reaction to etoposide

Hypersensitivity reactions to etoposide are reported infrequently and consist of hypotension, hypertension, flushing, diaphoresis, dyspnea, bronchospasm, and loss of consciousness. A 23-year-old woman experienced acute bronchospasm, tachycardia, hypoxia, and moderate hypertension minutes after an infusion of etoposide was begun. Symptoms resolved within an hour after administration of intravenous fluids, methylprednisolone, diphenhydramine, and oxygen. Subsequently, the patient was given etoposide phosphate without incident. To our knowledge, this is the first report of successful rechallenge with etoposide phosphate after an acute hypersensitivity reaction to etoposide.