[ Main Page | Editorial Board | About | Instructions ]
[ Table of Contents | Archive | Archive Search | Online Submission | Sponsor | E-mail ]

Turkish Journal of Cancer
2006, Volume 36, Number 2, Page(s) 057-063
[ Summary ] [ PDF ] [ Similar Articles ] [ Mail to Editor ]
Delayed molgramostim administration after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation does not add any benefit regarding hematological engraftment and supportive therapy requirements: A prospective randomized trial
OKAN KUZHAN, FİKRET ARPACI, AHMET ÖZET, BEKİR ÖZTÜRK, ŞEREF KÖMÜRCÜ
Gülhane Military School of Medicine, Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara-Turkey
Keywords: Molgramostim, high dose chemotherapy, autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation
Summary
The administration of hematopoietic growth factors after autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation is still controversial. In this prospective, randomized trial we aimed to investigate the impact of GM-CSF after the transplantation with G-CSF mobilized peripheral blood stem cells with respect to hematological engraftment and supportive therapy requirements. Thirty-one patients with solid and hematological malignancies were randomized in one group (n=16) receiving GM-CSF (Molgramostim, Leucomax; Sandoz- Schering-Plough Laboratories, Paris, France) from day 7 post transplant until neutrophil recovery (absolute neutrophil count >0.5x109/L on three consecutive days) or in another group (n=15) receiving no GM-CSF. All patients received total CD34+ cells more than 2x106/kg. The patients in both groups were comparable for age, sex, time between diagnosis and transplantation, total numbers of pretransplant chemotherapy regimens, previous radiotherapy, tumor type (solid or hematological) and numbers of total CD34+ cells infused. There was no difference between cytokine and nocytokine group with respect to leukocyte engraftment (11.9±2.2 vs. 11.9±2.9 days, respectively; p=0.936), platelet engraftment (12.6±3.6 vs. 11.9±3.9 days, respectively; p=0.691), number of days with parenteral antibiotherapy (10.8±4.7 vs. 11.9±3.7 days, respectively; p=0.662), number of days with fever over 38.1 °C (6.3±4.3 vs. 5.0±3.0 days, respectively; p=0.551), the use of red cells (2.6±1.7 vs. 2.9±1.0 units, respectively; p=0.623), the use of platelet transfusions (1.2±1.0 vs. 1.3±1.0 units, respectively; p=0.773), duration of posttransplant hospitalization (13.1±2.7 vs. 13.5±2.6 days, respectively; p=0.435). This randomized trial suggested that the administration of GM-CSF from day 7 until engraftment after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation did not add any evident clinical benefit in terms of engraftment duration and supportive therapy requirements. [Turk J Cancer 2006;36(2):57-63].
  • Top
  • Summary
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Disscussion
  • References
  • Introduction
    Nowadays autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (APBSCT) is performed with increasing frequency in several malignancies. There is a general agreement that, compared to autologous bone marrow transplantation, APBSCT is associated with faster hematological engraftment, shorter hospitalization duration and decreased supportive therapy requirements [1-4].

    It is well-established that the administration of hematopoietic growth factors (GM-CSF or G-CSF) accelerates neutrophil recovery in patients undergoing high-dose therapy followed by autologous bone marrow transplantation. In addition, there is evidence that the infusion of autologous peripheral-blood stem cells (PBSC) accelerates engraftment in comparison to patients who receive bone marrow alone. However, few data are available regarding the ability of hematopoietic growth factors (HGF) to accelerate engraftment further in patients who receive PBSC following highdose therapy. Depending on the recent studies, G-CSF after APBSCT has beneficial effects in terms of hematological engraftment and supportive therapy requirements and that delaying its administration is a cost-effective and logical approach [5-9]. But there are only few studies to reach conclusive results for GM-CSF.

  • Top
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Disscussion
  • References
  • Material and Methods
    Thirty-one patients, who underwent autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (APBSCT), were randomized to receive GM-CSF (Molgramostim, Leucomax; Sandoz-Schering-Plough Laboratories, Paris, France) or not to receive it. The study was approved by the local ethic committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

    Patients
    The diagnoses of the enrolled patients were breast cancer (n=13), osteosarcoma (n=5), relapsed Hodgkin’s disease (n=5), relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n=4), relapsed testicular cancer (n=2), small cell lung cancer (n=1) and multiple myeloma (n=1). GM-CSF group consisted of 16 patients (10 female, 6 male; mean age of 36.8±12.4 years) and -GM-CSF group consisted of 15 patients (6 female and 9 male; mean age of 37.0±12.2 years). Four patients in the GM-CSF group and 5 patients in the -GM-CSF group received previous radiotherapy. One patient in the GM-CSF group and 2 in the -GM-CSF group underwent second transplant. Interval between diagnosis and transplantation (time to transplantation) was 452.5±446.1 days in the GM-CSF group and 930.3±151.5 days in the no GM-CSF group. The patients’ characteristics are shown in table 1.

    Stem Cell Mobilization and Apheresis
    Recombinant human G-CSF (Filgrastim, Neupogen, Roche, Basel, Switzerland) was given at a total dose of 10- 15 µg/kg/day with twice-daily s.c. injections, beginning fourteen days after the completion of the last cycle of induction chemotherapy and continuing until the collection of PBSC was completed. Using a continuous flow cell separator (COBE Spectra, Lakewood, CO, USA), the leukapheresis procedure was performed wit a three-way central catheter on days 4, 5 or 6. Each apheresis continued 4 to 6 hours every day. Single apheresis was sufficient for all but one patient [10]. Harvested autologous plasma was mixed with dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) to yield a final DMSO concentration of 10%. The final suspension was transferred into freezing bag and frozen to -100 ºC using a computerized freezing device (R 201 Planar) and then stored in liquid nitrogen at -196 ºC following standard methods.

    Flow Cytometry
    CD34+ cells in the leukapheresis product were enumerated by flow cytometry (FACScan; Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany) using direct CD34 immunofluorescence. A minimum of 1×106 mononuclear cells was incubated for 30 minutes at 4 ºC with fluorescence conjugated to fluorescein isothiocyanate (Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany). The gated percentage of CD34+ cells was multiplied by the absolute MNC of the apheresis product to yield and absolute CD34+ cell count for each apheresis.

    High-Dose Chemotherapy Regimens
    Conditioning regimens included: CNV for breast cancer (n=13): Cyclophosphamide 2.4 g/m2, mitoxantrone 35 mg/m2, etoposide 250 mg/m2/d ×6 days; BEAM for Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n=9): BCNU 300 mg/m2, etoposide 200 mg/m2/d ×4 days, Ara-C 200 mg/m2/d ×4 days, melphalan 140 mg/m2; ICE for testicular cancer, osteosarcoma, lung cancer (n=8): Ifosfamide 2.5 g/m2/d ×6 days, carboplatin 250 mg/m2/d ×6 days, etoposide 250 mg/m2/d x6 days; CEP for breast cancer with lung metastasis (n=1): Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg/d ×2 days, etoposide 200 mg/m2/d ×6 days, carboplatin 200 mg/m2/d ×6 days; L-PAM for multiple myeloma: Melphalan 140 mg/m2.

    Stem Cell Transplantation and GM-CSF Administration
    At the time of transplantation (day 0), stem cell bags were quickly thawed at bedside and immediately infused intravenously through a central catheter. After transplantation the patients were randomized in cytokine or no cytokine group. In the cytokine group, the patients received 5 µg/kg/day recombinant human GM-CSF (Molgramostim, Leucomax; Sandoz-Schering-Plough Laboratories, Paris, France) by intravenous route from day 7 until leukocyte counts exceeded 1×109/L for 3 consecutive days.

    Evaluation of Posttransplant Reconstitution of Hematopoiesis
    Leukocyte count greater than 1×109/L was documented as leukocyte engraftment, neutrophil count greater than 0.5×109/L as neutrophil engraftment, and platelet count grater than 50×109/L as platelet engraftment.

    Posttransplant Supportive Therapy
    Single donor thrombopheresis was performed as needed to keep the platelet number above 20×109/L. Erythrocyte transfusion was performed to keep the hemoglobin level above 8 g/dL. All blood products were irradiated (2500 cGy) and transfused via leukocyte filter. Fever was defined as any temperature elevation over 38.1 ºC or fever over 38.0 ºC lasting at least one hour. Posttransplant hospitalization duration was documented as the period elapsed from reinfusion to discharge.

    Statistical Analysis
    Statistical analysis was performed using a statistical software (SPSS for Windows, version 9.0, SPSS Inc., USA). Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of distribution of values for unpaired series such as age, number of patients enrolled, time to transplantation, number of previous chemotherapy cycles, number of total nucleated cells, number of CD34+ cells, time to leukocyte and platelet engraftment, number of febrile days, number of days with parenteral antibiotherapy, number of erythrocyte and platelet units transfused. Chi-square test was used for comparison between groups regarding gender, history of previous radiotherapy, preparative regimens and type of malignity. If the expected frequency in table cells was under 5 or total sample size was under 20, Fisher’s exact test was used. The p value was considered statistically significant if <0.05.

  • Top
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Disscussion
  • References
  • Results
    Patients
    Between +GM-CSF and –GM-CSF group there were no statistically significant difference regarding age (36.9±12.4 vs. 37.0±12.2 years, respectively, p=0.968), gender (χ2=1.519, p=0.210), history of previous radiotherapy (χ2=0.261, p=0.704), time to transplantation (452.5±446.1 vs. 930.3±1510.5 days, respectively, p=0.527), number of pretransplant chemotherapy cycles (107 vs. 127, respectively, p=0.519), number of solid and hematological tumors (χ2=2.761, p=0.135) as shown in table 1.

    Table 1:Patient characteristics

    Leukapheresis Findings
    Between +GM-CSF and –GM-CSF group, number of collected total nucleated cells (12.4±3.5×108/kg vs. 14.6±7.5×108/kg respectively; p=0.937) and numbers of total CD34+ cells infused (6.3±2.3×106/kg vs. 9.3±7.9×108/kg respectively; p=0.384) were not different. All patients received total CD34+ numbers above 2×106/kg (Table 2).

    Table 2: Characteristics of apheresis products

    Hematological Engraftment
    Between two groups there was no difference with respect to leukocyte engraftment (11.9±2.2 vs. 11.9±2.9 days respectively; p=0.936) or platelet engraftment (12.6±3.6 vs. 11.9±3.9 days; p=0.691) (Table 3).

    Supportive Therapy Requirements
    Between +GM-CSF and –GM-CSF group, number of days with parenteral antibiotherapy (10.8±4.7 vs. 11.9±3.7 days, respectively; p=0.662), number of days with temperature over 38.1 °C (6.3±4.3 vs. 5.0±3.0 days, respectively; p=0.551), the use of red cells (2.6±1.7 vs. 2.9±1.0 units, respectively; p=0.623), the use of platelet transfusions (1.2±1.0 vs. 1.3±1.0 units, respectively; p=0.773), duration of posttransplant hospitalization (13.1±2.7 vs. 13.5±2.6 days, respectively; p=0.435) were not different (Table 3).

    Table 3: Hematological engraftment days and supportive therapy requirements

  • Top
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Disscussion
  • References
  • Discussion
    Posttransplant use of hematopoietic growth factors (HGF) have established value in following situations: patients receiving bone marrow infusion, patients receiving peripheral stem cells with total CD34+ cell number below 2×106/kg, patients receiving stem cells mobilized without HGF, patients with graft failure [11-18]. However, their use after APBSCT is still controversial. There are only few studies addressing posttransplant GM-CSF use, which gives a special value to our study.

    Advani et al. [19], randomized sixty-nine consecutive patients with Hodgkin’s or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to receive GM-CSF (36 patients) or placebo (33 patients) and found that administration of GM-CSF beginning on the day of autologous hemotopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma resulted in accelerated myeloid recovery, particularly in patients who received peripheral blood stem cells and nonpurged bone marrow, and was associated with a decreased incidence of bacterial infections. Delayed engraftment (neutrophils less than 500/mm3 at day 30) occurred in 26% and 17% of the placebo and GMCSF groups, respectively, and correlated with the absence of detectable myeloid progenitor cells (colony-forming units-granulocyte macrophage, CFU-GM) (P <0.001) in marrow aspirate specimens obtained on day 15. Time to platelet independence, hospitalization period, severe adverse reactions, relapse, and disease-free survival rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. In this study, GM-CSF was administered after stem cell infusion collected without any cytokine.

    In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, Legros et al. (20) evaluated the hematological and clinical effects of r- Hu GM-CSF after high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by GM-CSF-mobilized PBPC transplantation. Fifty patients with poor prognosis malignancies were randomized in a double-blind study to receive either GM-CSF or placebo after HDC followed by PBPC rescue. For all patients, PBPCs were recruited using a combination of VP-16 (300 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2), cyclophosphamide (3 g/m2 on days 3 and 4) and GM-CSF (5 micrograms/kg as from day 5). No differences were demonstrated between the two groups in median time to neutrophil or platelet recoveries. There was no significant difference between the GM-CSF group and the placebo group in terms of the median duration of post-transplant hospitalization, the number of days on antibiotic treatment, the number of infections and red blood cell or platelet transfusion requirements. There was a significant difference with an advantage for the placebo group in the mean duration of febrile days (p=0.01). Finally it was concluded that the administration of GM-CSF in patients transplanted with GM-CSF-mobilized PBPC was not associated with a clinical benefit in terms of time to engraftment, numbers of documented infections, transfusion requirements and mucositis grading. The results of this study are similar with ours, but the study design is different. GM-CSF was used after infusion of stem cells that had been collected with GM-CSF. Also GM-CSF had no additive benefit after GM-CSF priming.

    In other studies suggesting beneficial effects of GMCSF after APBSCT, the patients received CD34+ cells below 2×106/kg or apheresis is performed without any HGF. It seems that primed peripheral blood stem cells with HGFs enhance marrow engraftment and they have no additive effect after transplantation.

    We concluded that the administration of GM-CSF from day 7 until engraftment to patients transplanted with autologous peripheral blood stem cells does not add any evident clinical benefit in terms of engraftment duration and supportive therapy requirements. Even of no statistical importance, in the +GM-CSF group there were more febrile episodes (6.3±4.3 vs. 5.0±3.0 days; p=0.551) and longer platelet engraftment times (12.6±3.6 vs. 11.9±3.9 days; p=0.691), which may be explained as an adverse action of GM-CSF.

    Regarding the high cost of GM-CSF, its posttransplant controversial benefit and potential adverse effects, we suggest that they must be used only in selected cases.

  • Top
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • References
  • References

    1) Hagglund H, Ringden O, Remberger M, et al. Faster neutrophil and platelet engraftment, but no differences in acute GVHD or survival, using peripheral blood stem cells from related and unrelated donors, compared to bone marrow. Bone Marrow Transplant 1998;22:131-6.

    2) Thomas DM, Grigg AP. Use of Growth Factors following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In: Atkinson K, editor. Clinical Bone Marrow and Blood Stem Cell Transplantation. 2nd. ed. Cambridge University Press, 2000;395-412.

    3) To LB, Haylock DN, Simmons PJ, et al. The biology and clinical uses of blood stem cells. Blood 1997;89:2233-58.

    4) Ringden O, Remberger M, Runde V, et al. Faster engraftment of neutrophils and platelets with peripheral blood stem cells from unrelated donors: a comparison with marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2000 May;25 Suppl 2:S6-8.

    5) Hornedo J, Sola C, Solano C, et al.; SOLTI Group. The role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in the posttransplant period. Bone Marrow Transplant 2002;29:737-43.

    6) Bence-Bruckler I, Bredeson C, Atkins H, et al. A randomized trial of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (Neupogen) starting day 1 vs. day 7 post-autologous stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 1998;22:965-9.

    7) Bolwell BJ, Pohlmann B, Andresen S, et al. Delayed G-CSF after autologous progenitor cell transplantation: a prospective randomized trial. Bone Marrow Transplant 1998;21:369-73.

    8) Faucher C, Le Coroller AG, Chabannon C, et al. Administration of G-CSF can be delayed after transplantation of autologous G-CSF primed blood stem cells: a randomized study. Bone Marrow Transplant 1996;17:533-6.

    9) Piccirillo N, Sica S, Laurenti L, et al. Optimal timing of GCSF administration after CD34+ immunoselected peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 1999;23:1245-50.

    10) Arpaci F, Komurcu S, Oztürk B, et al. A successful and simplified filgrastim primed single apheresis method without large volume apheresis for peripheral blood stem cell collection. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2000;30:153-8.

    11) Carella AM, Gaozza E, Piatti G, et al. Clinical use of GMCSF in autologous bone marrow transplantation. Int J Cell Cloning 1990;8 Suppl 1:279-82.

    12) Nemunaitis J, Singer JW, Buckner CD, et al. Use of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in autologous marrow transplantation for lymphoid malignancies. Blood 1988;72:834-6.

    13) Brandt SJ, Peters WP, Atwater SK, et al. Effect of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on hematopoietic reconstitution after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. N Engl J Med 1988;318:869-76.

    14) Devereaux S, Linch DC, Gribben JG, et al. GM-CSF accelerates neutrophil recovery after autologous bone marrow transplantation for Hodgkin\'s disease. Bone Marrow Transplant 1989;4:49-54.

    15) Khwaja A, Linch DC, Goldstone AH, et al. Recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor after autologous bone marrow transplantation for malignant lymphoma: a British National Lymphoma Investigation double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Haematol 1992;82:317-23.

    16) Nemunaitis J, Singer JW, Buckner CD, et al. Use of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in graft failure after bone marrow transplantation. Blood 1990;76:245-53.

    17) Brandwein JM, Nayar R, Baker MA, et al. GM-CSF therapy for delayed engraftment after autologous bone marrow transplantation. Exp Hematol 1991;19:191-5.

    18) Vadhan-Raj S, Buescher S, LeMaistre A, et al. Stimulation of hematopoiesis in patients with bone marrow failure and in patients with malignancy by recombinant human granulocyte- macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Blood 1988;72:134-41.

    19) Advani R, Chao NJ, Horning SJ, et al. GM-CSF as an adjunct to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for lymphoma. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:261-2.

    20) Legros M, Fleury J, Bay JO, et al. RhGM-CSF vs. placebo following rhGM-CSF-mobilized PBPC transplantation: a phase III double-blind randomized trial. Bone Marrow Transplant 1997;19:209-13.

  • Top
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • References
  • [ Top ] [ Summary ] [ PDF ] [ Similar Articles ] [ Mail to Editor ]
    Turkish Journal of Cancer web sitesi Novartis Onkoloji'nin karþýlýksýz eðitim katkýlarýyla hazýrlanmýþtýr.
    [ Main Page | Editorial Board | About | Instructions ]
    [ Table of Contents | Archive | Archive Search | Online Submission | E-mail ]