4.2 Review

The case for plerixafor to replace filgrastim as the optimal agent to mobilize peripheral blood donors for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL HEMATOLOGY
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 1-9

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.exphem.2018.11.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-stimulated peripheral blood progenitor cells (G-PBs) from either a related or unrelated donor continue to be the preferred donor source for most allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Recently, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation has recommended marrow instead of G-PBs as an unrelated graft source due to its lower rate of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). However, the use of marrow is limited by both clinical considerations (slower rate of engraftment and increased donor morbidity) and logistical considerations (use of operating room resources and increased physician utilization), so this recommendation has not been widely adopted. An optimal donor source would include the rapid engraftment characteristic and the low donor morbidity associated with G-PBs and a rate of cGVHD similar to or lower than that of marrow. Recent data suggest that plerixafor mobilized PBs (P-PBs) have the rapid engraftment characteristics of G-PBs in allogeneic HCT with less cGVHD. The biologic mechanism of the lower rate of cGVHD appears to be through mobilization of regulator natural killer cells and plasmacytoid dendritic cell precursors that are associated with lower acute and chronic GVHD compared with G-PBs and rapid engraftment characterized by rapid myeloid-repopulating capacity. We suggest that, based on the experience of the two Phase II clinical trials and the unique biology of plerixafor-mobilized donor product, it should be evaluated in Phase III trials as an approach to replacing G-CSF mobilization for allogeneic HCT. (C) 2018 ISEH - Society for Hematology and Stem Cells. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据