|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS, INTERVENTIONS, AND THERAPEUTIC TRIALS
From the Baylor College of Medicine Center for Cell and
Gene Therapy and the Departments of Blood and Marrow
Transplantation, Biomathematics, Pediatrics, Laboratory Medicine, and
Patient Care Business Affairs, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson
Cancer Center, Houston.
The rapid recovery of hematopoiesis after allogeneic blood stem
cell transplantation has been attributed to the quality and quantity of
hematopoietic progenitors in the blood stem cell grafts from
filgrastim-stimulated donors. To determine whether further stimulation
with filgrastim after transplantation would affect hematopoietic
recovery, a prospective, randomized, controlled study was performed.
Forty-two adult recipients of allogeneic blood stem cells from human
leukocyte antigen-matched related donors were randomized to receive 10 µg/kg per day filgrastim subcutaneously from day 1 through neutrophil
recovery or no growth factor support after transplantation. There was
no significant difference between the 2 groups in the number of
CD34+ cells infused (median, 4.8 vs
4.3 × 106/kg). Graft-versus-host (GVHD) disease
prophylaxis consisted of tacrolimus and steroids for 9 patients and
tacrolimus and minimethotrexate for 33 patients. The group receiving
filgrastim had a shorter time to neutrophil levels greater than
0.5 × 109/L (day 12 vs day 15, P = .002)
and to neutrophil levels greater than 1.0 × 109/L (day
12 vs day 16, P = .01). The filgrastim group also had a
trend for earlier discharge (day 16 vs 20, P = .05).
There was no significant difference between the groups in time to
platelet recovery, number of transfusions, regimen-related
toxicity, infection, incidence of GVHD, relapse, survival, or hospital
charges. It can be concluded that the administration of filgrastim
after allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation shortens the time to
neutrophil recovery.
(Blood. 2001;97:3405-3410) Serious and life-threatening infectious
complications after marrow or blood stem cell transplantation have been
attributed to prolonged neutropenia induced by the myeloablative
regimen and to neutrophil dysfunction in the early phase after
transplantation.1,2 Hematopoietic growth factors have been
evaluated to ameliorate these complications. In preclinical studies,
recombinant human granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF),
such as filgrastim or lenograstim, stimulated hematopoietic
proliferation and neutrophil differentiation, up-regulated adhesion
molecule expression by neutrophils, and increased neutrophil
chemotaxis, phagocytosis, and intracellular killing.3 In
clinical studies of filgrastim or lenograstim after autologous marrow
or blood stem cell transplantation, the time to neutrophil recovery was
shortened significantly, and there was a reduction in days of fever or
antibiotic use and in length of hospital stay in the group receiving
the growth factor.4-10
The safety and activity of filgrastim have also been evaluated in
recipients of allogeneic marrow transplants. In phase 1 and 2 studies,
filgrastim has been used at doses of 2 to 20 µg/kg per day after
allogeneic marrow transplantation, with mild bone pain at the highest
dose level the only significant toxicity noted.11-13 Phase
2 studies with comparison to historical controls have suggested a beneficial effect of filgrastim or lenograstim on neutrophil recovery after allogeneic marrow transplantation, and no adverse effects on acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) or relapse were reported.14-19 These results were confirmed on subset
analysis of phase 3 studies of lenograstim after marrow
transplantation4,5 and in a preliminary report of a
controlled trial of filgrastim for recipients of allogeneic marrow
transplants.20
Use of filgrastim-mobilized blood stem cells rather than marrow from
human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical donors has been associated with
a shorter time to neutrophil recovery after transplantation by
some21-23 but not all24,25 investigators.
Rapid neutrophil recovery after allogeneic blood stem cell
transplantation has been attributed to the higher number of
CD34+ cells and the higher proportion of late committed
progenitors in the stem cells in comparison to marrow
allografts,26 and, as a result, some have suggested that
the administration of hematopoietic growth factors after
transplantation would not alter the rate of engraftment in these
patients.27 We therefore conducted a randomized,
controlled study to determine whether filgrastim administered after
allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation shortened the time to
neutrophil recovery.
Patients
Filgrastim administration
Blood stem cell collection and processing Blood stem cells were mobilized by treatment of normal donors with 6 µg/kg filgrastim subcutaneously twice daily for at least 4 days before collection by apheresis.28 All blood stem cell grafts were cryopreserved. Details of processing and graft evaluation have been published.28Transplantation and supportive care Patients received total body irradiation-based, busulfan-based, or carmustine-based myeloablative preparative regimens. The first 9 patients received tacrolimus and steroids to prevent GVHD. Because of a concern regarding fungal infections with the use of steroids, the protocol was revised to use tacrolimus and micromethotrexate (5 mg/m2 methotrexate intravenously on days 1, 3, and 6) thereafter. Details of the GVHD prophylaxis regimens, standard supportive care, prophylactic antibiotics, and transfusion support have been published.24,29 Patients were monitored prospectively for toxicity and GVHD.Study definitions The primary end point was time to neutrophil recovery, defined as the first of 3 consecutive days on which the ANC exceeded 1.0 × 109/L. Platelet recovery was defined as the day on which the platelet count exceeded the target number (20 or 50 × 109/L) with no platelet transfusions the following week. Transfusions were recorded as platelet transfusions (pooled or single-donor) or red blood cell (RBC) units administered from the day of transplantation to day 100 or death, whichever was earlier. The average number of transfusions per day was calculated by dividing the total number of transfusions by the number of days the patient was alive between day 0 and day 100. Early regimen-related toxicity (RRT) was graded according to the Seattle criteria,30 and GVHD was graded according to the consensus criteria.31 Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was defined as death from any cause other than proximate relapse. Hospital charges were taken from actual billing records for day 0 to the day of discharge. Complete charges were unavailable for the 2 patients with the longest hospital stays. Estimates of missing charges for these patients were based on the services documented in the medical records and actual charges for similar services during subsequent days of hospitalization. Room charges and filgrastim charges were calculated based on rates at the time of transplantation.Statistical considerations The study was designed as a randomized, controlled trial with a 2-sided type 1 error of 0.05 and 85% power to detect a 4-day decrease in median time to ANC greater than 1.0 × 109/L. Because it could not be assumed that recovery times were normally distributed, a planned sample size of 60 was determined from computer simulations using historical data. Stopping criteria included grades 3 to 4 RRT greater than 20% or day 100 TRM greater than 20%. Analysis of the first 40 patients with 100-day follow-up revealed excess TRM in the control arm, and the trial was terminated. At the time of termination, 42 patients had been randomized. Systemic infection developed in one patient in the control arm early after transplantation, and he was given 5 µg/kg per day filgrastim beginning on day 5. The final study evaluation was performed on an intent-to-treat basis; hence, this patient remained in the control arm for the analysis. At the time of analysis, the median time from transplantation was 24 months (range, 8 to 48 months).Interval data are reported as median and range. Censored data are
reported as the Kaplan-Meier estimate and 95% confidence intervals,
and comparisons between treatment groups were made using the log-rank
test. Comparisons of times to neutrophil or platelet recovery were
stratified for CD34+ cell dose above or below the median.
There was no significant correlation between the CD34+ cell
dose and total nucleated cell dose, nor was total nucleated cell dose
predictive of hematopoietic recovery. Therefore, comparison of recovery
times was not adjusted for total nucleated cell dose. Results are
presented graphically by means of censored box plots32 in
which quartiles are based on Kaplan-Meier estimates of the respective
distributions. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare
independent samples on an interval scale (age, graft characteristics, transfusions, hospital charges), and the
Study participants Forty-two patients whose median age was 40 years (range, 15-52 years) were randomized and treated. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups, though the study arm had more patients with refractory disease and more cytomegalovirus-seronegative patient-donor pairs (Table 1). Median age of the donors was 39 years (range, 8-56 years). One donor was the son of the recipient, and the other donors were siblings of the recipients.
Engraftment Blood stem cell grafts contained a median 7.0 × 108 TNC/kg and 4.7 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg. The median TNC dose was significantly higher for the control arm, but both groups received similar CD34+ cell doses (Table 1). The study group received filgrastim for a median 11 days after transplantation (range, 6-25 days). Life-threatening septic shock developed in one patient in the control arm shortly after transplantation, and he was given filgrastim starting on the fifth day. His ANC was 0.5 × 109/L or greater on day 18; neutropenia then recurred, and he died of graft failure and infection on day 31. All other evaluable patients achieved neutrophil recovery.Median times to neutrophil recovery were 13 days (range, 8-23 days)
after transplantation for an ANC 0.5 × 109/L or greater
and 13 days (range, 8-31+ days) for an ANC 1.0 × 109/L
or greater for all patients. Patients in the filgrastim arm had a
significantly shorter time to neutrophil recovery (Figure 1), even when adjusted for
CD34+ cell dose (Table 2).
For the subset of patients receiving methotrexate for GVHD prophylaxis,
use of filgrastim was still associated with more rapid engraftment
(P = .005) (Table 2).
Median times to platelet recovery were 13 days (range, 6-54+ days) for a platelet count of 20 × 109/L or greater, and 17 days (range, 10-100+ days) for a platelet count of 50 × 109/L or greater. There was a trend for more rapid recovery of platelets (P = .06 to platelets 20 × 109/L or greater), fewer platelet transfusions (P = .18), and fewer platelet transfusions per day (P = .20) in the control arm (Table 2). However, no trend was observed when only ABO-compatible pairs were assessed for platelet recovery and transfusion. There was no difference between study arms in RBC transfusions. Infections No significant differences occurred between study arms in the number of days on broad-spectrum antibiotics after transplantation during recovery from initial neutropenia (Table 3), nor were there any differences in the proportion of patients with infection or in the types of infections in the early or late posttransplantation periods (Table 3).
Early posttransplantation outcomes Mucositis was the most common RRT seen. There were no significant differences in mucositis between the 2 study arms (Table 4), nor were there significant differences in moderate-to-severe or severe RRT between the 2 treatment arms. Median time to discharge was day 17 (range, 10-80 days) after transplantation. There was a trend for a shorter time to discharge for patients in the filgrastim arm (P = .05) (Figure 2). There was no significant difference between the groups in the time from neutrophil recovery to discharge (median interval, 5 days in the filgrastim arm vs 4 days in the control arm; P = .16), suggesting that the earlier discharge with filgrastim resulted from more rapid hematopoietic recovery rather than prevention of incidents that prolonged hospitalization after hematopoietic recovery. No serious or unusual adverse effects attributable to filgrastim were reported.
Grades 2 to 4 GVHD occurred in 31% (95% CI, 16%-45%) and grades 3 to 4 in 16% (95% CI, 5%-27%) of patients. The risk for chronic GVHD at 1 year was 69% (95% CI, 49%-81%). Differences between arms in acute and chronic GVHD were not significant (Table 4). Relapse and survival The actuarial estimate of relapse at 1 year was 49% (95% CI, 33%-66%). There was a trend for less relapse in the control arm (P = .16) (Table 4). TRM was 2% at day 30 and 14% at day 100 after transplantation. In addition, there was a trend for increased TRM at day 100 after transplantation in the control arm (P = .18) (Table 4). Actuarial survival at day 100 was 90% (95% CI, 81%-100%) for the filgrastim arm and 76% (95% CI, 58%-94%) for the control arm. Overall survival at 1 year for all patients was 58% (95% CI, 42%-73%), and there was no significant difference in 1-year survival between arms (P = .94) (Table 4).Analysis of charges Comparisons of hospital charges from day 0 to the day of discharge are presented in Table 5. Total charges for each arm were comparable (median charge, $66,285 vs $65,021; P = .61). When comparing individual expense categories, there was a trend for lower cumulative room charges in the filgrastim arm (median, $15,200 vs $18,000; P = .09), but differences for the other categories were not significant (Table 5).
In a retrospective analysis of a small series, Schmitz et al33 suggested that filgrastim accelerated engraftment in recipients of allogeneic blood stem cell transplants, but the efficacy of growth factor use in this setting had not been tested previously. We conducted a prospective, controlled trial in patients who underwent allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation, and we now report that the administration of filgrastim after transplantation significantly hastened neutrophil recovery. There was a 3-day reduction in time to ANC of 0.5 × 109/L or greater and a 4-day reduction to ANC of 1.0 × 109/L or greater. Our results confirmed those of a recent study by Bishop et al.34 We also noted a trend toward a delay in platelet recovery in filgrastim-treated patients, an observation not previously reported for filgrastim or lenograstim with autologous marrow or blood stem cell transplantation.5,7-9 The difference in time to platelet recovery between arms was not as apparent when only ABO-compatible patient-donor pairs were considered, so the difference seen in the whole group might have been due in part to iso-immunization. Additionally, there were no significant differences in numbers of transfusions between the 2 arms. Bishop et al34 also reported that filgrastim had no adverse impact on platelet recovery. In both studies, however, there might have been too few patients to allow for the detection of a small but significant difference in platelet recovery. Although rhGM-CSF also reduces the duration of neutropenia after allogeneic marrow transplantation,35-37 its effect is abrogated when methotrexate is used for GVHD prophylaxis.38,39 By contrast, even when methotrexate was used, the time to neutrophil recovery after allogeneic marrow transplantation was significantly shorter with filgrastim or lenograstim in comparison to historical controls.15-17,19,40 We here confirm that low-dose methotrexate does not abrogate the effect of filgrastim on neutrophil recovery in recipients of allogeneic blood stem cells. Rapid engraftment after allogeneic marrow transplantation has been associated with an increased risk for acute GVHD,41 raising questions regarding the safety of filgrastim for allogeneic marrow or blood stem cell transplantation. However, studies42-44 in murine allogeneic marrow transplant models showed that filgrastim improved hematopoietic recovery without an increase in GVHD. In addition, neither we in this study nor others13-20 found that the use of filgrastim increased the rate of acute or chronic GVHD after allogeneic blood stem cell or marrow transplantation. It should be noted, however, that to avoid potential cytokine reactions from excessively high white blood cell counts, we here refrained from administering filgrastim once the ANC exceeded 1.0 × 109/L. In our study, patients receiving filgrastim had a slightly higher relapse rate than patients in the control arm. Although some types of leukemia display receptors for filgrastim, a substantial body of literature supports the contention that filgrastim does not promote leukemia growth in a clinically meaningful way; therefore, direct stimulation of the underlying malignancy was not expected. However, whether filgrastim alters the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect after allogeneic transplantation is unknown. Filgrastim-mobilized blood stem cells reduce natural killer activity and Th2 polarization of lymphocytes compared with peripheral blood mononuclear cells,45,46 characteristics potentially associated with loss of GVL effect. Despite this, preclinical studies demonstrate that filgrastim-mobilized blood stem cells still mediate GVL in vivo47 and that filgrastim potentiates the antitumor effects of IL-12.48 In addition, filgrastim has been used successfully as therapy for relapse after allogeneic transplantation,49 and no impact of filgrastim on long-term survival has been seen in comparative or randomized studies of filgrastim in allogeneic marrow transplanation.16-19 Consequently, we believe that the higher rate of relapse in the study arm occurred because a higher proportion of patients in that arm had refractory disease before transplantation. A cost savings has been reported for the use of filgrastim with autologous marrow or blood stem cell transplantation and with allogeneic marrow transplantation,8,10,19 largely as a result of shorter hospital stays.16-19 The magnitude of the savings varied with the dose and schedule of filgrastim. We here have shown the efficacy of filgrastim 10 µg/kg per day beginning on the first day after transplantation. Others have evaluated different doses and schedules. In nonrandomized comparisons, the rate of engraftment after allogeneic transplantation was similar with 5 or 10 µg/kg per day12,13,40 or when the initiation of filgrastim therapy was delayed to the fifth or seventh day after transplantation.13,14,50,51 Overall, the use of filgrastim after allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation led to earlier hematopoietic recovery and discharge. The heterogeneity of the patient population and the number of patients enrolled precluded exclusion of a small but significant difference between arms in other transplantation outcomes or hospital charges.
Submitted November 6, 2000; accepted February 6, 2001.
Supported in part by Amgen and by the National Institutes of Health (grant CA-16672).
P.A. is a paid consultant for Amgen, and R.C. is a member of the Oncology Advisory Board for Amgen.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734.
Reprints: Donna Przepiorka, Center for Cell and Gene Therapy, Baylor College of Medicine, 6565 Fannin St, M964, Houston, TX 77030; e-mail: donnap{at}bcm.tmc.edu.
1. Meyers JD, Atkinson K. Infection in bone marrow transplantation. Clin Hematol. 1983;12:791-811.
2.
Zimmerli W, Zarth A, Gratwohl A, et al.
Neutrophil function and pyogenic infections in bone marrow transplant recipients.
Blood.
1991;77:393-399
3.
Anderlini P, Przepiorka D, Champlin R, et al.
Biologic and clinical effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in normal individuals.
Blood.
1996;88:2819-2825 4. Linch DC, Scarffe H, Proctor S, et al. Randomised vehicle-controlled dose-finding study of glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1993;11:307-311[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 5. Gisselbrecht C, Prentice HG, Bacigalupo A, et al. Placebo-controlled phase III trial of lenograstim in bone-marrow transplantation. Lancet. 1994;343:696-700[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
6.
Stahel RA, Jost LM, Cerny T, et al.
Randomized study of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation for high-risk lymphoid malignancies.
J Clin Oncol.
1994;12:1931-1938 7. Klummp TR, Mangan FK, Goldberg SL, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor accelerates neutrophil engraftment following peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation: a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1323-1327[Abstract].
8.
McQuaker IG, Hunter AE, Pacey S, et al.
Low-dose filgrastim significantly enhances neutrophil recovery following autologous peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation in patients with lymphoproliferative disorders: evidence for clinical and economic benefit.
J Clin Oncol.
1997;15:451-457 9. Linch DC, Milligan DW, Winfield DA, et al. G-CSF after peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in lymphoma patients significantly accelerated neutrophil recovery and shortened time in hospital: results of a randomized BNLI trial. Br J Haematol. 1997;99:933-938[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 10. Lee SM, Radford JA, Dobson L, et al. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim) following high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood progenitor cell rescue in high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: clinical benefits at no extra cost. Br J Cancer. 1998;77:1294-1299[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 11. Teshima H, Ishikawa J, Kitayama H, et al. Clinical effects of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in leukemia patients: a phase I/II study. Exp Hematol. 1989;17:853-858[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 12. Masaoka T, Takaku F, Kato S, et al. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Exp Hematol. 1989;17:1047-1050[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 13. Asano S, Masaoka T, Takaku F, et al. Clinical effect of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in bone marrow transplantation. Jpn J Cancer Chemother. 1990;17:1201-1209. 14. Asano S, Masaoka T, Takaku F. Beneficial effect of recombinant human glycosylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in marrow-transplanted patients: results of multicenter phase II-III studies. Transplant Proc. 1991;23:1701-1703[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 15. Lickliter JD, Roberts AW, Grigg AP. Phase II study of glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplantation. Aust N Z J Med. 1994;24:541-546[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
16.
Schriber JR, Chao NJ, Long GD, et al.
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.
Blood.
1994;84:1680-1684 17. Martin-Algarra S, Bishop MR, Tarantolo S, et al. Hematopoietic growth factors after HLA-identical allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in patients treated with methotrexate-containing graft-vs-host disease prophylaxis. Exp Hematol. 1995;23:1503-1508[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 18. Locatelli F, Pession A, Zecca M, et al. Use of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in children given allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for acute or chronic leukemia. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996;17:31-37[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
19.
Lee SJ, Weller E, Alyea EP, et al.
Efficacy and costs of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in allogeneic T-cell depleted bone marrow transplantation.
Blood.
1998;92:2725-2729 20. Hiraoka A, Masaoka T, Shibata H, et al. Five years follow-up of a randomized placebo-controlled study with filgrastim (recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) in patients receiving allogeneic bone-marrow transplantation [abstract]. Blood. 1995;86:222. 21. Russell JA, Brown C, Bowen T, et al. Allogeneic blood cell transplants for haematological malignancy: preliminary comparison of outcomes with bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996;17:703-708[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
22.
Bensinger WI, Clift R, Martin P, et al.
Allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies: a retrospective comparison with marrow transplantation.
Blood.
1996;88:2794-2800 23. Pavletic ZS, Bishop MR, Tarantolo SR, et al. Hematologic recovery after allogeneic blood stem-cell transplantation compared with bone marrow transplantation in patients with hematologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:1608-1616[Abstract]. 24. Przepiorka D, Anderlini P, Ippoliti C, et al. Allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation in advanced hematologic cancers. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997;19:455-460[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 25. Schmitz N, Bacigalupo A, Hasenclever D, et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation vs filgrastim-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in patients with early leukemia: first results of a randomised multicentre trial of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998;21:995-1003[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 26. Hassan HT, Stockschlader M, Schleimer B, et al. Comparison of the content and subpopulations of CD3 and CD34 positive cells in bone marrow harvest and G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood leukapheresis products from healthy adult donors. Transplant Immunol. 1996;4:319-323[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
27.
Rosenfeld C, Collins R, Pineiro L, et al.
Allogeneic blood cell transplantation without posttransplant colony-stimulating factors in patients with hematopoietic neoplasms: a phase II study.
J Clin Oncol.
1996;14:1314-1319 28. Anderlini P, Przepiorka D, Seong C, et al. Factors affecting mobilization of CD34+ cells in normal donors treated with filgrastim. Transfusion. 1997;37:507-512[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 29. Przepiorka D, Ippoliti C, Khouri I, et al. Allogeneic transplantation for advanced leukemia: improved short-term outcome with blood stem cell grafts and tacrolimus. Transplantation. 1996;62:1806-1810[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
30.
Bearman SI, Appelbaum FR, Buckner CD, et al.
Regimen-related toxicity in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation.
J Clin Oncol.
1988;6:1562-1568 31. Przepiorka D, Weisdorf D, Martin P, et al. 1994 consensus conference on acute GVHD grading. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995;15:825-828[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 32. Gentleman R, Crowley J. Graphical methods for censored data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1991;86:678-683[CrossRef]. 33. Schmitz N, Bacigalupo A, Labopin M, et al. Transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells from HLA-identical sibling donors. Br J Haematol. 1996;95:715-723[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
34.
Bishop MR, Tarantolo SR, Geller RB, et al.
A randomized, double-blind trial of filgrastim (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus placebo following allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation.
Blood.
2000;96:80-85 35. Powles R, Smith C, Milan S, et al. Human recombinant GM-CSF in allogeneic bone-marrow transplantation for leukemia: double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 1990;336:1417-1420[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
36.
De Witte T, Gratwohl A, Van Der Lely N, et al.
Recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor accelerates neutrophil and monocyte recovery after allogeneic T-cell-depleted bone marrow transplantation.
Blood.
1992;79:1359-1365 37. Nemunaitis J, Rosenfeld CS, Ash R, et al. Phase III randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of rhGM-CSF following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995;15:949-954[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
38.
Nemunaitis J, Buckner CD, Appelbaum FR, et al.
Phase I/II trial of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.
Blood.
1991;77:2065-2071
39.
Nemunaitis J, Anasetti C, Storb R, et al.
Phase II trial of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplantation from unrelated donors.
Blood.
1992;79:2572-2577 40. Hassan HT, Krog C, Stockschlader M, et al. Factors influencing the haematological recovery after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in leukemia patients treated with methotrexate-containing GVHD prophylaxis: a single-centre experience. Anticancer Res. 1997;17:589-600[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 41. Hägglund H, Bostrom L, Remberger M, et al. Risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease in 291 consecutive HLA-identical bone marrow transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995;16:747-753[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
42.
Blazar BR, Widmer MB, Cosman D, et al.
Improved survival and leukocyte reconstitution without detrimental effects on engraftment in murine recipients of human recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after transplantation of T-cell-depleted histoincompatible bone marrow.
Blood.
1989;74:2264-2269
43.
Atkinson K, Matias C, Guiffre A, et al.
In vivo administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage CSF, interleukin-1 (IL-1), and IL-4, alone and in combination, after allogeneic murine hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
Blood.
1991;77:1376-1382 44. Reddy V, Hill GR, Pan L, et al. G-CSF modulates cytokine profile of dendritic cells and decreases acute graft-versus-host disease through effects on the donor rather than the recipient. Transplantation. 2000;69:691-693[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
45.
Hartung T, Docke WD, Gantner F, et al.
Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment on ex vivo blood cytokine response in human volunteers.
Blood.
1995;85:2482-2489
46.
Miller JS, Prosper F, McCullar V.
Natural killer (NK) cells are functionally abnormal and NK cell progenitors are diminished in granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cell collections.
Blood.
1997;90:3098-3105
47.
Pan L, Techima T, Hill G, et al.
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized allogeneic stem cell transplant maintains graft-versus-leukemia effects through a perforin-dependent pathway while preventing graft-versus-host disease.
Blood.
1999;93:4071-4078
48.
Golab J, Stoklosa T, Zagozdzon R, et al.
G-CSF prevents the suppression of bone marrow hematopoiesis induced by IL-12 and augments its antitumor activity in a melanoma model in mice.
Ann Oncol.
1998;9:63-69
49.
Giralt S, Escudier S, Kantarjian H, et al.
Preliminary results of treatment with filgrastim for relapse of leukemia and myelodysplasia after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.
N Engl J Med.
1993;329:757-761 50. Lee KH, Lee JH, Choi SJ, et al. Randomized comparison of two different schedules of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999;24:591-599[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 51. Przepiorka D, Anderlini P, Nasr F, et al. Delayed administration of filgrastim does not abrogate its effect on hematopoietic recovery after HLA-identical blood stem cell transplantation [abstract]. Blood. 1999;94:151.
© 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
  L. Sung, P. C. Nathan, S. M.H. Alibhai, G. A. Tomlinson, and J. Beyene Meta-analysis: Effect of Prophylactic Hematopoietic Colony-Stimulating Factors on Mortality and Outcomes of Infection Ann Intern Med, September 18, 2007; 147(6): 400 - 411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Dekker, S. Bulley, J. Beyene, L. L. Dupuis, J. J. Doyle, and L. Sung Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Prophylactic Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor After Autologous and Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2006; 24(33): 5207 - 5215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eapen, M. M. Horowitz, J. P. Klein, R. E. Champlin, F. R. Loberiza Jr, O. Ringden, and J. E. Wagner Higher Mortality After Allogeneic Peripheral-Blood Transplantation Compared With Bone Marrow in Children and Adolescents: The Histocompatibility and Alternate Stem Cell Source Working Committee of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry J. Clin. Oncol., December 15, 2004; 22(24): 4872 - 4880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Mehta Myeloid Growth Factors Should Not Be Administered Routinely After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation J. Clin. Oncol., November 1, 2004; 22(21): 4429 - 4430. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. R. Appelbaum Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Following Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Does Haste Make Waste? J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2004; 22(3): 390 - 391. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Schmitz, M. Beksac, D. Hasenclever, A. Bacigalupo, T. Ruutu, A. Nagler, E. Gluckman, N. Russell, J. F. Apperley, N. C. Gorin, et al. Transplantation of mobilized peripheral blood cells to HLA-identical siblings with standard-risk leukemia Blood, July 18, 2002; 100(3): 761 - 767. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Copyright © 2001 by American Society of Hematology Online ISSN: 1528-0020 | |||||||||
Top
Abstract
Introduction
2 test or
Fisher exact test was used for categorical data (demographics, infections, RRT, and TRM). Two-sided P < .05 was
considered significant.
