Filgrastim-Stimulated Bone Marrow Compared with Filgrastim-Mobilized Peripheral Blood in Myeloablative Sibling Allografting for Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Randomized Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group Study
- PMID: 27154847
- DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.04.017
Filgrastim-Stimulated Bone Marrow Compared with Filgrastim-Mobilized Peripheral Blood in Myeloablative Sibling Allografting for Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Randomized Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group Study
Erratum in
-
Erratum to "Filgrastim-Stimulated Bone Marrow Compared with Filgrastim-Mobilized Peripheral Blood in Myeloablative Sibling Allografting for Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Randomized Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group Study" [Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2016;22:1410-1415].Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017 Mar;23(3):534. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.09.021. Epub 2016 Oct 24. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017. PMID: 27789277 No abstract available.
Abstract
In adult hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), filgrastim-mobilized peripheral blood (G-PB) has largely replaced unstimulated marrow for allografting. Although the use of G-PB results in faster hematopoietic recovery, it is also associated with more chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). A potential alternative allograft is filgrastim-stimulated marrow (G-BM), which we hypothesized may be associated with prompt hematopoietic recovery but with less cGVHD. We conducted a phase 3, open-label, multicenter randomized trial of 230 adults with hematologic malignancies receiving allografts from siblings after myeloablative conditioning to compare G-PB with G-BM. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure, defined as a composite of extensive cGVHD, relapse/disease progression, and death. With a median follow-up of 36 months (range, 9.6 to 48), comparing G-BM with G-PB, there was no difference between the 2 arms with respect to the primary outcome of this study (hazard ratio [HR], .91; 95% confidence interval [CI], .68 to 1.22; P = .52). However, the cumulative incidence of overall cGVHD was lower with G-BM (HR, .66; 95% CI, .46 to .95; P = .007) and there was no difference in the risk of relapse or progression (P = .35). The median times to neutrophil recovery (P = .0004) and platelet recovery (P = .012) were 3 days shorter for recipients allocated to G-PB compared with those allocated to G-BM, but there were no differences in secondary engraftment-related outcomes, such as time to first hospital discharge (P = .17). In addition, there were no graft failures in either arm. This trial demonstrates that, compared with G-PB, the use of G-BM allografts leads to a significantly lower rate of overall cGVHD without a loss of the graft-versus-tumor effect and comparable overall survival. Our findings suggest that further study of this type of allograft is warranted.
Keywords: Blood and marrow transplantation; Donor source; Filgrastim; Graft-versus-host disease; Hematopoietic cell transplantation; Mobilized bone marrow.
Copyright © 2016 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Expecting a Miracle Harvest after Miracle Growth: Controversies of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor-Mobilized Matched Sibling Donor Transplantation.Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016 Aug;22(8):1343-1345. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.06.009. Epub 2016 Jun 14. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016. PMID: 27321366 No abstract available.
-
Bone Marrow and Peripheral Blood: Which Is Safe?Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016 Dec;22(12):2283-2284. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.09.015. Epub 2016 Sep 19. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016. PMID: 27660170 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
