This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Koç, O. N. Articles by Lazarus, H. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Koç, O. N. Articles by Lazarus, H. M.

Randomized Cross-Over Trial of Progenitor-Cell Mobilization: High-Dose Cyclophosphamide Plus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Versus Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Plus G-CSF

From the Departments of Medicine and Pathology, Case Western Reserve University; Ireland Cancer Center; and University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH.

Address reprint requests to Omer N. Koç, MD, Case Western Reserve University, BRB-3 Hematology/Oncology, 10900 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106; email onk2{at}po.cwru.edu

PURPOSE: Patient response to hematopoietic progenitor-cell mobilizing regimens seems to vary considerably, making comparison between regimens difficult. To eliminate this inter-patient variability, we designed a cross-over trial and prospectively compared the number of progenitors mobilized into blood after granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) days 1 to 12 plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) days 7 to 12 (regimen G) with the number of progenitors after cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF days 3 to 14 (regimen C) in the same patient.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were randomized to receive either regimen G or C first (G1 and C1, respectively) and underwent two leukaphereses. After a washout period, patients were then crossed over to the alternate regimen (C2 and G2, respectively) and underwent two additional leukaphereses. The hematopoietic progenitor-cell content of each collection was determined. In addition, toxicity and charges were tracked.

RESULTS: Regimen C (n = 50) resulted in mobilization of more CD34⁺ cells (2.7-fold/kg/apheresis), erythroid burst-forming units (1.8-fold/kg/apheresis), and colony-forming units–granulocyte-macrophage (2.2-fold/kg/apheresis) compared with regimen G given to the same patients (n = 46; paired t test, P < .01 for all comparisons). Compared with regimen G, regimen C resulted in better mobilization, whether it was given first (P = .025) or second (P = .02). The ability to achieve a target collection of 2 x 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg using two leukaphereses was 50% after G1 and 90% after C1. Three of the seven patients in whom mobilization was poor after G1 had 2 x 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg with two leukaphereses after C2. In contrast, when regimen G was given second (G2), seven out of 10 patients failed to achieve the target CD34⁺ cell dose despite adequate collections after C1. Thirty percent of the patients (nine of 29) given regimen C were admitted to the hospital because of neutropenic fever for a median duration of 4 days (range, 2 to 10 days). The higher cost of regimen C was balanced by higher CD34⁺ cell yield, resulting in equivalent charges based on cost per CD34⁺ cell collected.

CONCLUSION: We report the first clinical trial that used a cross-over design showing that high-dose cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF results in mobilization of more progenitors then GM-CSF plus G-CSF when tested in the same patient regardless of sequence of administration, although the regimen is associated with greater morbidity. Patients who fail to achieve adequate mobilization after regimen G can be treated with regimen C as an effective salvage regimen, whereas patients who fail regimen C are unlikely to benefit from subsequent treatment with regimen G. The cross-over design allowed detection of significant differences between regimens in a small cohort of patients and should be considered in design of future comparisons of mobilization regimens.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Carlo-Stella, M. Di Nicola, P. Longoni, L. Cleris, C. Lavazza, R. Milani, M. Milanesi, M. Magni, V. Pace, F. Colotta, et al. Placental Growth Factor-1 Potentiates Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Mobilization Induced by Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Mice and Nonhuman Primates Stem Cells, January 1, 2007; 25(1): 252 - 261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A. Gregory, E. Reyes, M. J. Whitney, and J. L. Spees Enhanced Engraftment of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in a Cutaneous Wound Model by Culture in Allogenic Species-Specific Serum and Administration in Fibrin Constructs Stem Cells, October 1, 2006; 24(10): 2232 - 2243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Condomines, P. Quittet, Z.-Y. Lu, L. Nadal, P. Latry, E. Lopez, M. Baudard, G. Requirand, C. Duperray, J.-F. Schved, et al. Functional Regulatory T Cells Are Collected in Stem Cell Autografts by Mobilization with High-Dose Cyclophosphamide and Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor. J. Immunol., June 1, 2006; 176(11): 6631 - 6639. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Carlo-Stella, M. Di Nicola, R. Milani, A. Guidetti, M. Magni, M. Milanesi, P. Longoni, P. Matteucci, F. Formelli, F. Ravagnani, et al. Use of recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) plus recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) for the mobilization and collection of CD34+ cells in poor mobilizers Blood, May 1, 2004; 103(9): 3287 - 3295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Narayanasami, R. Kanteti, J. Morelli, A. Klekar, A. Al-Olama, C. Keating, C. O'Connor, E. Berkman, J. K. Erban, K. A. Sprague, et al. Randomized trial of filgrastim versus chemotherapy and filgrastim mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells for rescue in autologous transplantation Blood, October 1, 2001; 98(7): 2059 - 2064. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Akard and O. N. Koc Optimum Methods to Mobilize Stem Cells J. Clin. Oncol., August 16, 2000; 18(16): 3063 - 3063. [Full Text]