The impact of granulocyte colony stimulating factor at content of donor lymphocytes collected for cellular immunotherapy

2004 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mutlu Arat ◽  
Önder Arslan ◽  
Günhan Gürman ◽  
Klara Dalva ◽  
Muhit Özcan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cellular Immunotherapy ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Stimulating Factor ◽  
Donor Lymphocytes

scholarly journals Monocytopenia in clozapine-induced agranulocytosis: insights into pathophysiology and treatment

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. bcr-2018-226016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajvi Patel ◽  
Ateaya Lima ◽  
Christopher Burke ◽  
Mark Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Absolute Neutrophil Count ◽  
Monocyte Count ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Gm Csf ◽  
The Third ◽  
Colony Forming Unit ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Stimulating Factor

A 26-year-old man with history of schizophrenia was admitted for neutropaenia. He was started on clozapine 3 months prior to admission. As a result he had weekly monitoring of his blood counts and on day of admission was noted to have an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 450 cells/μL. He was admitted for clozapine-induced agranulocytosis. Clozapine was held and the patient was started on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim and received two doses without any signs of ANC recovery. On further review, it was noted that the absolute monocyte count (AMC) was also low and tracked with the trend of ANC. We then theorised that the impact of clozapine was on a haematopoietic precursor (colony-forming unit granulocyte-macrophage, CFU-GM) which gives rise to both monocytic and myeloid lineages. Therefore, sargramostim GM-CSF was started. After two doses, the ANC and AMC started trending up and by the third dose, both counts had fully recovered. He was discharged from the hospital and there are no plans to rechallenge with clozapine. Thus, we demonstrate a case of monocytopenia accompanying clozapine-induced agranulocytosis with successful use of GM-CSF. At least in this case, the target of the clozapine injury appears to be the CFU-GM, explaining the rapid and full response to GM-CSF after lack of response to G-CSF.

Early versus delayed administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor following chemotherapy in pediatric patients with Ewing sarcoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-329
Author(s):  
Deema Al-Momani ◽  
Wiam Al-Qasem ◽  
Rawan Kasht ◽  
Iyad Sultan
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Ewing Sarcoma ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Stimulating Factor

BackgroundThe optimal timing of initiating granulocyte-colony stimulating factor following chemotherapy in pediatric patients has not been clearly defined. This study aimed to compare the administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on day 1 versus day 3 postchemotherapy in pediatric patients with Ewing sarcoma.MethodA retrospective study of pediatric patients with Ewing sarcoma who received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor following chemotherapy between January 2016 and September 2018 at a comprehensive cancer center. The institution’s chemotherapy protocol for Ewing sarcoma was modified in April 2017 to include granulocyte-colony stimulating factor initiation on day 3 instead of day 1 post-chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization, duration of hospital stay, and chemotherapy delay were compared for patients before and after the protocol change.ResultsOver the study period, 250 cycles were evaluated with day 1 granulocyte-colony stimulating factor and 221 cycles with day 3 granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. There were no differences between the day 1 and day 3 groups in the number of cycles associated with Febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization (34 vs. 19, p = 0.086), and the length of Febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization (mean 4 ± 2.1 vs. 4.6 ± 1.8, p = 0.123). However, delay in chemotherapy due to neutropenia was reported in significantly more cycles in the day 1 group, compared to the day 3 group (37 vs. 16, p = 0.01).ConclusionsFebrile neutropenia resulting in hospital admission and the length of hospital stay was not different between pediatric patients with Ewing sarcoma who received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on day 1 or day 3 post-chemotherapy. Chemotherapy delay due to neutropenia was higher in patients who received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on day 1. Larger studies are required to fully determine the impact of delayed initiation of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.

Standard Versus Intensified Chemotherapy With Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Support in Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Lung Cancer Group Phase III Trial—08923

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (19) ◽  
pp. 3947-3955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Ardizzoni ◽  
Vivianne C.G. Tjan-Heijnen ◽  
Pieter E. Postmus ◽  
Erica Buchholz ◽  
Bonne Biesma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Stimulating Factor

PURPOSE: To assess the impact on survival of increasing dose-intensity (DI) of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE) in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated SCLC patients were randomized to standard CDE (cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 45 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3 every 3 weeks, for five cycles) or intensified CDE (cyclophosphamide 1,250 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 55 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 125 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] 5 μg/kg/d on days 4 to 13 every 2 weeks, for four cycles). Projected cumulative dose was almost identical on the two arms, whereas projected DI was nearly 90% higher on the intensified arm. Two hundred forty-four patients were enrolled. The first 163 patients were also randomized (2 × 2 factorial design) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo to assess their impact on preventing febrile leukopenia (FL). This report focuses on chemotherapy DI results. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 54 months, 216 deaths have occurred. Actually delivered DI on the intensified arm was 70% higher than on the standard arm. Intensified CDE was associated with more grade 4 leukopenia (79% v 50%), grade 4 thrombocytopenia (44% v 11%), anorexia, nausea, and mucositis. FL and number of toxic deaths were similar on the two arms. The objective response rate was 79% for the standard arm and 84% for the intensified arm (P = .315). Median survival was 54 weeks and 52 weeks, and the 2-year survival rates were 15% and 18%, respectively (P = .885). CONCLUSION: A 70% increase of CDE actual DI does not translate into an improved outcome in SCLC patients.

scholarly journals Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor enhances bone tumor growth in mice in an osteoclast-dependent manner

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 109 (8) ◽  
pp. 3424-3431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela C. Hirbe ◽  
Özge Uluçkan ◽  
Elizabeth A. Morgan ◽  
Mark C. Eagleton ◽  
Julie L. Prior ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Resorption ◽  
Tumor Growth ◽  
Bone Tumor ◽  
Dependent Manner ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Mineral Density ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Abstract Inhibition of osteoclast (OC) activity has been associated with decreased tumor growth in bone in animal models. Increased recognition of factors that promote osteoclastic bone resorption in cancer patients led us to investigate whether increased OC activation could enhance tumor growth in bone. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, but is also associated with increased markers of OC activity and decreased bone mineral density (BMD). We used G-CSF as a tool to investigate the impact of increased OC activity on tumor growth in 2 murine osteolytic tumor models. An 8-day course of G-CSF alone (without chemotherapy) significantly decreased BMD and increased OC perimeter along bone in mice. Mice administered G-CSF alone demonstrated significantly increased tumor growth in bone as quantitated by in vivo bioluminescence imaging and histologic bone marrow tumor analysis. Short-term administration of AMD3100, a CXCR4 inhibitor that mobilizes neutrophils with little effect on bone resorption, did not lead to increased tumor burden. However, OC-defective osteoprotegerin transgenic (OPGTg) mice and bisphosphonate-treated mice were resistant to the effects of G-CSF administration upon bone tumor growth. These data demonstrate a G-CSF–induced stimulation of tumor growth in bone that is OC dependent.

Prophylactic human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after induction therapy in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
pp. 936-943 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Lehrnbecher ◽  
Martin Zimmermann ◽  
Dirk Reinhardt ◽  
Michael Dworzak ◽  
Jan Stary ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
De Novo ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Myelogenous Leukemia ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Acute Myelogenous ◽  
De Novo Aml ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Abstract Children with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) have a high risk of infectious complications that might be reduced by prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). However, G-CSF could induce AML blast proliferation. The prospective randomized trial AML-BFM 98 investigated the impact of G-CSF on hematopoetic recovery and infectious complications (primary endpoints) and on outcome (secondary endpoint) in children (aged 0-18 years) with de novo AML. Patients with more than 5% blasts in day-15 bone marrow or with FAB M3 were not included. Between 1998 and 2003, 161 children with AML were randomized to receive G-CSF after inductions 1 and 2, whereas 156 patients were assigned to the control group. Time of neutropenia after inductions 1 and 2 was significantly shorter in the G-CSF group (23 vs 18 days and 16 vs 11 days; P = .02 and = .001, respectively). G-CSF did not decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (72 and 36 patients vs 78 and 37 patients, respectively), microbiologically documented infections (27 and 25 patients vs 36 and 19 patients, respectively) and infection-associated mortality (5 vs 2 patients). Both groups had similar 5-year event-free survival (EFS; 59% ± 4% vs 58% ± 4%). Since G-CSF does not influence the risk of infectious complications or outcome in children undergoing therapy for AML, one cannot advocate the routine use of G-CSF in this patient group.

Impact on Acute Myeloid Leukemia Relapse in Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor Application: A Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5169-5169
Author(s):  
Xiaoqin Feng ◽  
Chunfu Li
Keyword(s):  
Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Stimulating Factor ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Abstract Objective: This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) added to chemotherapy on treatment outcomes including survival and disease recurrence in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Methods: Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE,Google Scholar databases were searched until December 7, 2015 using the following search terms. Randomized control trials (RCTs), two-arm, and prospective studies that investigated patients with AML who underwent stem-cell transplantation were included. Results: The overall analysis revealed significant improvement in overall survival (OS) (pooled HR= 0.90; 95%CI, 0.83 to 0.98; P = 0.017) and disease free survival (DFS) (pooled HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.94; P = 0.002) for patients receiving G-CSF with chemotherapy. Among patients without prior AML treatment, there was significant improvement in DFS (pooled HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.98; P = 0.021) and reduction in incidence of relapse (pooled HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.96; P = 0.015) for those who received G-CSF. However, subgroup analyses found no significant difference between G-CSF (+) and G-CSF (-) treatments in rates of OS (P = 0.135) and complete remission (CR) (P = 0.357) for patients without prior AML treatment. Among patients with relapsed/refractory AML, there was no significant difference found between G-CSF(+) and G-CSF(-)groups for OS (P = 0.225), DFS (P = 0.209) and CR (P = 0.208).[EG1] Discussion and Co nclusion: Treatment with chemotherapy plus G-CSF appears to provide better survival and treatment responses compared with chemotherapy alone, particularly for patients with previously untreated AML. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document