Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: The peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) mobilization capacity of EPO in association with either G-CSF or sequential GM-CSF/G-CSF was compared in a randomized fashion after epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cisplatin (ETP) chemotherapy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Forty patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV ovarian carcinoma were enrolled in this randomized comparison of mobilizing capacity and myelopoietic effects of G-CSF + EPO and GM-/G-CSF + EPO following the first ETP chemotherapy treatment. After ETP chemotherapy (Day 1), 20 patients received G-CSF 5 microg per kg per day from Day 2 to Day 13 and 20 patients received GM-CSF 5 microg per kg per day from Day 2 to Day 6 followed by G-CSF 5 microg per kg per day from Day 7 to Day 13. EPO (150 IU per kg) was given every other day from Day 2 to Day 13 to all patients in both arms of the study. Apheresis (two blood volumes) was performed during hematologic recovery. RESULTS: The magnitude of CD34+ cell mobilization and the abrogation of patients' myelosuppression were comparable in both study arms; however, GM-/G-CSF + EPO patients had significantly higher CD34+ yields because of a higher CD34+ cell collection efficiency (57.5% for GM-/G-CSF + EPO and 46.3% for G-CSF + EPO patients; p = 0.0009). Identical doses of PBPCs mobilized by GM-/G-CSF + EPO and G-CSF + EPO drove comparable hematopoietic recovery after reinfusion in patients treated with identical high-dose chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The sequential administration of GM-CSF and G-CSF in combination with EPO is feasible and improves the PBPC collection efficiency after platinum-based intensive polychemotherapy, associating high PBPC mobilization to high collection efficiency during apheresis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Perillo et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: