4.7 Article

Experiences of donors enrolled in a randomized study of allogeneic bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 97, Issue 9, Pages 2541-2548

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V97.9.2541

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA15704, CA18029] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The experiences of 69 (38 marrow and 31 peripheral blood stem cell [PBSC]) donors participating in a randomized trial comparing allogeneic bone marrow with PBSC transplantation were studied. Marrow was collected by means of standard harvest techniques and general or regional anesthesia. PBSC donors were treated with 5 to 7 days of filgrastim at a dose of 16 mug/kg/d and underwent 1 to 3 days of apheresis to obtain 5 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells per kilogram recipient weight. Donors completed questionnaires describing their health experiences before, during, and then weekly after donation until return to baseline status. Both marrow and PBSC donors reported minimal fluctuation in symptoms measuring emotional status. In contrast, both groups of donors reported deterioration in physical status starting with administration of filgrastim (PBSC donors) or after the marrow collection procedure. The symptom burden reported was similar, with pain a prominent symptom for both groups. Equivalent mean levels of maximal pain, average pain, and pain duration through the day were reported, although toxicity peaks occurred at different time points during the harvest procedures. All PBSC donors but only 79% of marrow donors reported good physical status by 14 days after the harvest procedures. These data demonstrate similar levels of physical discomfort for hematopoietic stem cell donors regardless of the collection procedure used, but a quicker resolution of symptoms for PBSC donors. (Blood.2001;97:2541-2548) (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