We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Randomized comparison of G-CSF + GM-CSF vs G-CSF alone for mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells: effects on hematopoietic recovery after high-dose chemotherapy.
Bone Marrow Transplantation 1997 December
Fifty patients with either lymphoid or selected solid tumor malignancies were apheresed an identical number of times for PBSC collection after being randomized to receive either G-CSF 10 microg/kg/day alone (arm I), or G-CSF at the same dose with GM-CSF 5 microg/kg/day (arm II). Growth factor(s) was/were given as the stem cell mobilizing agent for 5 days before the start of PBSC collection, and were continued throughout the 4 days of apheresis. Aspiration and cryopreservation of autologous bone marrow occurred on day 3 or 4 of growth factor(s). Thirty-one of 50 patients received one cycle only at time of evaluation, and 19 patients received two cycles of HDCT, each supported with PBSC with or without autologous bone marrow. No patients received growth factors post-autologous stem cell transplant, unless the absolute neutrophils count (ANC) failed to recover to > or = 100/microl by day +18 post-transplant. The median number of days to recovery of ANC to 100/microl, 500/microl and 1000/microl, and of platelet counts to 20000/microl, 50000/microl and 100000/microl after either cycle 1 or cycle 2 of HDCT and the number of febrile days and platelet and PRBC transfusion requirements was not significantly different between the two arms of the study. The duration of hospitalization was similar between study arms for cycle 1 of HDCT, but was 3.5 days less with arm II compared to arm I (P = 0.0248) for cycle 2 of HDCT. The bone marrow buffy coat and PBSC product mononuclear cell count (x 10(8)/kg) and CD34+ cell count (x 10(6)/kg) collected by each method of stem cell mobilization was not significantly different. There is questionable clinical benefit with PBSC products mobilized with the combination of G-CSF and GM-CSF vs G-CSF alone. Perhaps different dosages, schedules, or other growth factor combinations with G-CSF might enhance these differences.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app