Bozdağ Sinem Civriz, Tekgündüz Emre, Durgun Gamze, Sarıca Abdurrahman, Demiriz Itır Şirinoğlu, Koçubaba Serife, Altuntaş Fevzi
Ankara Oncology Education and Research Hospital, Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation Clinic, Ankara, Turkey.
Transfus Apher Sci. 2013 Jun;48(3):407-10. doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2013.04.027. Epub 2013 May 1.
Although chemotherapy combined with G-CSF is an effective method for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization, standard chemotherapy protocol leading to best stem cell yield is not defined. In our study, we aimed to assess the impact of chemotherapy choice on mobilization outcome in lymphoma patients. Patients were mobilized with cyclophosphamide (n:15), ASHAP (n:11) or VGEPP (n:12) protocols. Groups were similar according to collected CD34+ cell count, total nucleated cell count and median apheresis days. Five out of fifteen (33%) patients could not be mobilized in Cy group but there was only one failed mobilization attempt in both salvage groups (9% with ASHAP vs 8% with VGEPP). In conclusion, we showed that VGEPP and ASHAP are safe protocols in terms of stem cell mobilization and have similar mobilization capacity as cyclophosphamide alone.
尽管化疗联合粒细胞集落刺激因子（G-CSF）是造血干细胞动员的有效方法，但尚未明确能产生最佳干细胞产量的标准化化疗方案。在我们的研究中，我们旨在评估化疗方案的选择对淋巴瘤患者动员结果的影响。患者分别采用环磷酰胺方案（n = 15）、ASHAP方案（n = 11）或VGEPP方案（n = 12）进行动员。根据收集的CD34+细胞计数、总核细胞计数和单采中位数天数，各组情况相似。环磷酰胺组15例患者中有5例（33%）未能成功动员，但在两个挽救方案组中均只有1例动员失败（ASHAP方案为9%，VGEPP方案为8%）。总之，我们表明，就干细胞动员而言，VGEPP和ASHAP方案是安全的，并且与单独使用环磷酰胺具有相似的动员能力。
