İnönü University, Turgut Özal Medical Center, Adult Hematology Department, Malatya, Turkey.
Inonu University, Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Malatya, Turkey.
Transfus Apher Sci. 2021 Aug;60(4):103127. doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2021.103127. Epub 2021 Apr 3.
Peripheral blood stem cell transplantation is frequently used in the treatment of various hematological malignancies after intensive chemotherapy. The primary aim of our study is to compare the amount of collected CD34+ cells and engraftment times in patients mobilized with filgrastim or lenograstim.
Demographic and clinical data of multiple myeloma (MM) and lymphoma patients who underwent autologous transplantation and mobilized with G-CSF (filgrastim or lenograstim) without chemotherapy were collected retrospectively.
One hundred eleven MM and 58 lymphoma patients were included in the study. When mobilization with filgrastim and lenograstim was compared in MM patients, there was no significant difference in neutrophil and thrombocyte engraftment times of lenograstim and filgrastim groups (p = 0.931 p = 0.135, respectively). Similarly, the median number of CD34+ cells collected in patients receiving filgrastim and lenograstim was very similar (4.2 × 10/kg vs 4.3 × 10/kg, p = 0.977). When compared with patients who received lenalidomide before transplantation and patients who did not receive lenalidomide, the CD34+ counts of the two groups were similar. However, neutrophil and platelet engraftment times in the group not receiving lenalidomide tended to be shorter (p = 0.095 and p = 0.12, respectively). When lymphoma patients mobilized with filgrastim and lenograstim were compared, neutrophil engraftment time (p = 0.498), thrombocyte engraftment time (p = 0.184), collected CD34+ cell counts (p = 0.179) and mobilization success (p = 0.161) of the groups mobilized with filgrastim and lenograstim were similar.
The superiority of the two agents to each other could not be demonstrated. Multi-center prospective studies with larger numbers of patients are needed.
在外周血干细胞移植后,密集化疗常用于治疗各种血液系统恶性肿瘤。我们研究的主要目的是比较使用非格司亭和培非格司亭动员后采集的 CD34+细胞数量和植入时间。
回顾性收集多发性骨髓瘤(MM)和淋巴瘤患者的人口统计学和临床数据,这些患者接受了自体移植,并在没有化疗的情况下使用 G-CSF(非格司亭或培非格司亭)动员。
本研究共纳入 111 例 MM 患者和 58 例淋巴瘤患者。在 MM 患者中比较非格司亭和培非格司亭动员时,培非格司亭组和非格司亭组的中性粒细胞和血小板植入时间无显著差异(p=0.931,p=0.135)。同样,接受非格司亭和培非格司亭治疗的患者采集的 CD34+细胞中位数也非常相似(4.2×10^6/kg 比 4.3×10^6/kg,p=0.977)。与接受移植前接受来那度胺和未接受来那度胺的患者相比,两组的 CD34+计数相似。然而,未接受来那度胺的患者中性粒细胞和血小板植入时间较短(p=0.095 和 p=0.12)。比较淋巴瘤患者使用非格司亭和培非格司亭动员时,两组的中性粒细胞植入时间(p=0.498)、血小板植入时间(p=0.184)、采集的 CD34+细胞计数(p=0.179)和动员成功率(p=0.161)相似。
两种药物彼此之间没有优越性。需要进行多中心前瞻性研究,纳入更多患者。