A randomized study comparing filgrastim versus lenograstim versus molgramostim plus chemotherapy for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization |
| |
Authors: | Kopf B De Giorgi U Vertogen B Monti G Molinari A Turci D Dazzi C Leoni M Tienghi A Cariello A Argnani M Frassineti L Scarpi E Rosti G Marangolo M |
| |
Affiliation: | Department of Oncology and Hematology, Istituto Oncologico Romagnolo, Santa Maria delle Croci Hospital, Ravenna, Italy. barbakopf1@hotmail.com |
| |
Abstract: | ![]() We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial to assess the mobilizing efficacy of filgrastim, lenograstim and molgramostim following a disease-specific chemotherapy regimen. Mobilization consisted of high-dose cyclophosphamide in 45 cases (44%), and cisplatin/ifosfamide/etoposide or vinblastine in 22 (21%), followed by randomization to either filgrastim or lenograstim or molgramostim at 5 microg/kg/day. One hundred and three patients were randomized, and 82 (79%) performed apheresis. Forty-four (43%) patients were chemonaive, whereas 59 (57%) were pretreated. A median number of one apheresis per patient (range, 1-3) was performed. The median number of CD34+ cells obtained after mobilization was 8.4 x 10(6)/kg in the filgrastim arm versus 5.8 x 10(6)/kg in the lenograstim arm versus 4.0 x 10(6)/kg in the molgramostim arm (P=0.1). A statistically significant difference was observed for the median number of days of growth factor administration in favor of lenograstim (12 days) versus filgrastim (13 days) and molgramostim (14 days) (P<0.0001) and for the subgroup of chemonaive patients (12 days) versus pretreated patients (14 days) (P<0.001). In conclusion, all three growth factors were efficacious in mobilizing peripheral blood progenitor cells with no statistically significant difference between CD34+ cell yield and the different regimens, and the time to apheresis is likely confounded by the different mobilization regimens. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 PubMed 等数据库收录! |
|