Cargando…
ESHAP and G-CSF is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and G-CSF for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients
Cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2)followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is an effective peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilizing regimen, but has limited anti-lymphoma activity. We therefore assessed the mobilizing potential of ESHAP (etoposide, ara-C, methylprednisolone and cispla...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2000
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363271/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10646877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.1999.0915 |
_version_ | 1782153662101979136 |
---|---|
author | Watts, M J Ings, S J Leverett, D MacMillan, A Devereux, S Goldstone, A H Linch, D C |
author_facet | Watts, M J Ings, S J Leverett, D MacMillan, A Devereux, S Goldstone, A H Linch, D C |
author_sort | Watts, M J |
collection | PubMed |
description | Cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2)followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is an effective peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilizing regimen, but has limited anti-lymphoma activity. We therefore assessed the mobilizing potential of ESHAP (etoposide, ara-C, methylprednisolone and cisplatin), a potent second-line lymphoma regimen followed by G-CSF. The results were compared in 78 patients with relapsed or resistant lymphomas with the use of cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2)followed by G-CSF in a matched pairs analysis, matching the ESHAP recipients (for predetermined prognostic factors) from a cohort of 178 lymphoma patients mobilized with cyclophosphamide and G-CSF. The total numbers of mononuclear cells collected at apheresis was similar with both regimens but ESHAP plus G-CSF resulted in a significantly higher percentage of CD34+ cells, absolute number of CD34+ cells and GM-CFC (all with P -values < 0.001). The number of patients requiring only one apheresis harvest to achieve a CD34+ cell yield of > 2.0 × 10(6)kg(−1)was greatly increased in the ESHAP recipients (56/78 vs 17/78, P< 0.001). The total number of progenitor cells collected was not significantly different with the two mobilization regimens because of this higher number of apheresis in the cyclophosphamide group. The proportion of patients who failed to achieve a minimum CD34+ cell target of 1 × 10(6)kg(−1)with the pooled harvests was less in the ESHAP arm (four patients vs nine patients) despite an increased number of aphereses in the cyclophosphamide recipients. ESHAP plus G-CSF is well tolerated and is an excellent mobilization regimen in patients with pre treated lymphoma. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2363271 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2000 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-23632712009-09-10 ESHAP and G-CSF is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and G-CSF for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients Watts, M J Ings, S J Leverett, D MacMillan, A Devereux, S Goldstone, A H Linch, D C Br J Cancer Regular Article Cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2)followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is an effective peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilizing regimen, but has limited anti-lymphoma activity. We therefore assessed the mobilizing potential of ESHAP (etoposide, ara-C, methylprednisolone and cisplatin), a potent second-line lymphoma regimen followed by G-CSF. The results were compared in 78 patients with relapsed or resistant lymphomas with the use of cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2)followed by G-CSF in a matched pairs analysis, matching the ESHAP recipients (for predetermined prognostic factors) from a cohort of 178 lymphoma patients mobilized with cyclophosphamide and G-CSF. The total numbers of mononuclear cells collected at apheresis was similar with both regimens but ESHAP plus G-CSF resulted in a significantly higher percentage of CD34+ cells, absolute number of CD34+ cells and GM-CFC (all with P -values < 0.001). The number of patients requiring only one apheresis harvest to achieve a CD34+ cell yield of > 2.0 × 10(6)kg(−1)was greatly increased in the ESHAP recipients (56/78 vs 17/78, P< 0.001). The total number of progenitor cells collected was not significantly different with the two mobilization regimens because of this higher number of apheresis in the cyclophosphamide group. The proportion of patients who failed to achieve a minimum CD34+ cell target of 1 × 10(6)kg(−1)with the pooled harvests was less in the ESHAP arm (four patients vs nine patients) despite an increased number of aphereses in the cyclophosphamide recipients. ESHAP plus G-CSF is well tolerated and is an excellent mobilization regimen in patients with pre treated lymphoma. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign Nature Publishing Group 2000-01 2000-01-18 /pmc/articles/PMC2363271/ /pubmed/10646877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.1999.0915 Text en Copyright © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Regular Article Watts, M J Ings, S J Leverett, D MacMillan, A Devereux, S Goldstone, A H Linch, D C ESHAP and G-CSF is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and G-CSF for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients |
title | ESHAP and G-CSF is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and G-CSF for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients |
title_full | ESHAP and G-CSF is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and G-CSF for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients |
title_fullStr | ESHAP and G-CSF is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and G-CSF for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients |
title_full_unstemmed | ESHAP and G-CSF is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and G-CSF for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients |
title_short | ESHAP and G-CSF is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and G-CSF for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients |
title_sort | eshap and g-csf is a superior blood stem cell mobilizing regimen compared to cyclophosphamide 1.5 g m(−2) and g-csf for pre-treated lymphoma patients: a matched pairs analysis of 78 patients |
topic | Regular Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363271/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10646877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.1999.0915 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wattsmj eshapandgcsfisasuperiorbloodstemcellmobilizingregimencomparedtocyclophosphamide15gm2andgcsfforpretreatedlymphomapatientsamatchedpairsanalysisof78patients AT ingssj eshapandgcsfisasuperiorbloodstemcellmobilizingregimencomparedtocyclophosphamide15gm2andgcsfforpretreatedlymphomapatientsamatchedpairsanalysisof78patients AT leverettd eshapandgcsfisasuperiorbloodstemcellmobilizingregimencomparedtocyclophosphamide15gm2andgcsfforpretreatedlymphomapatientsamatchedpairsanalysisof78patients AT macmillana eshapandgcsfisasuperiorbloodstemcellmobilizingregimencomparedtocyclophosphamide15gm2andgcsfforpretreatedlymphomapatientsamatchedpairsanalysisof78patients AT devereuxs eshapandgcsfisasuperiorbloodstemcellmobilizingregimencomparedtocyclophosphamide15gm2andgcsfforpretreatedlymphomapatientsamatchedpairsanalysisof78patients AT goldstoneah eshapandgcsfisasuperiorbloodstemcellmobilizingregimencomparedtocyclophosphamide15gm2andgcsfforpretreatedlymphomapatientsamatchedpairsanalysisof78patients AT linchdc eshapandgcsfisasuperiorbloodstemcellmobilizingregimencomparedtocyclophosphamide15gm2andgcsfforpretreatedlymphomapatientsamatchedpairsanalysisof78patients |