Mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells following myelosuppressive chemotherapy: a randomized comparison of filgrastim, sargramostim, or sequential sargramostim and filgrastim.
Author(s): Weaver CH, Schulman KA, Buckner CD
Affiliation(s): CancerConsultants.com Inc., Ketchum, ID, USA.
Publication date & source: 2001-05, Bone Marrow Transplant., 27 Suppl 2:S23-9.
Publication type: Clinical Trial; Clinical Trial, Phase III; Randomized Controlled Trial
Myelosuppressive chemotherapy is frequently used for mobilization of autologous CD34(+) progenitor cells into the peripheral blood for subsequent collection and support of high-dose chemotherapy. The administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy is typically followed by a myeloid growth factor and is associated with variable CD34 cell yields and morbidity. The two most commonly used myeloid growth factors for facilitation of CD34 cell harvests are granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). We performed a randomized phase III clinical trial comparing G-CSF, GM-CSF, and sequential administration of GM-CSF and G-CSF following administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We evaluated CD34 yields, morbidity, and cost-effectiveness of the three cytokine schedules. One hundred and fifty-six patients with multiple myeloma, breast cancer, or lymphoma received cyclophosphamide with either paclitaxel or etoposide and were randomized to receive G-CSF 6 microg/kg/day s.c., GM-CSF 250 microg/m(2)/day s.c., or GM-CSF for 6 days followed by G-CSF until completion of the stem cell harvest. Compared with patients who received GM-CSF, patients who received G-CSF had faster recovery of absolute neutrophil count to 0.5 x 10(9) per liter (median of 11 vs14 days, P = 0.0001) with fewer patients requiring red blood cell transfusions (P= 0.008); fewer patients with fever (18% vs 52%, P = 0.001); fewer hospital admissions (20% vs 42%, P = 0.13); and less intravenous antibiotic therapy (24% vs 59%, P = 0.001). Patients who received G-CSF also yielded more CD34 cells (median 7.1 vs 2.0 x 10(6) kg per apheresis, P = 0.0001) and a higher percentage achieved 2.5 x 10(6) CD34 cells per kilogram (94% vs 78%, P = 0.21) and 5 x 10(6) CD34 cells per kilogram (88% vs 53%, P = 0.01) or more CD34 cells per kilogram with fewer aphereses (median 2 vs 3, P = 0.002) and fewer days of growth factor treatment (median 12 vs 14, P = 0.0001). There were no significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving G-CSF alone and the sequential regimen. After high-dose chemotherapy, patients who had peripheral blood stem cells mobilized with G-CSF or the sequential regimen received higher numbers of CD34 cells and had faster platelet recovery with fewer patients requiring platelet transfusions than patients receiving peripheral blood stem cells mobilized by GM-CSF. In summary, G-CSF alone is superior to GM-CSF alone for the mobilization of CD34(+) cells and reduction of toxicities following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. An economic analysis evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these three effective schedules is ongoing at the time of this writing.