4.7 Article

Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-primed allogeneic bone marrow: significantly less graft-versus-host disease and comparable engraftment to G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood stem cells

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 98, Issue 12, Pages 3186-3191

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V98.12.3186

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prospective studies have shown rapid engraftment using granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (G-PBSCs) for allogeneic transplantation, though the risks for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) may be increased. It was hypothesized that the use of G-CSF to prime bone marrow (GBM) would allow rapid engraftment without increased risk for GVHD compared with G-PBSC. Patients were randomized to receive G-BM or G-PBSCs for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The study was designed (beta < .8) to detect a difference in the incidence of chronic GVHD of 33% ( < .05). The plan was to recruit 100 patients and to conduct an interim analysis when the 6-month follow-up point was reached for the first 50 patients. Fifty-seven consecutive patients were recruited (G-BM, n = 28; G-PBSC, n = 29). Patients in the G-PBSC group received 3-fold more CD34(+) and 9-fold more CD3(+) cells. Median times to neutrophil (G-BM, 16 days; G-PBSC, 14 days; P < .1) and platelet engraftment (G-BM, 14 days; G-PBSC, 12 days; P < .1) were similar. The use of G-PBSC was associated with steroid refractory acute GVHD (G-BM, 0%; G-PBSC, 32%; P < .001), chronic GVHD (G-BM, 22%; G-PBSC, 80%; P < .02), and prolonged requirement for immunosuppressive therapy (G-BM, 173 days; G-PBSC, 680 days; P < .009). Survival was similar for the 2 groups. Compared with G-PBSC the use of G-BM resulted in comparable engraftment, reduced severity of acute GVHD, and less subsequent chronic GVHD. (Blood. 2001;98:3186-3191) (C) 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available