Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor/granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor

1999 ◽  
Vol &NA; (743) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
&NA;
1995 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 5499-5507 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Krishnaraju ◽  
H Q Nguyen ◽  
D A Liebermann ◽  
B Hoffman

Previously we have shown that the zinc finger transcription factor Egr-1 is essential for and restricts differentiation of hematopoietic cells along the macrophage lineage, raising the possibility that Egr-1 actually plays a deterministic role in governing the development of hematopoietic precursor cells along the monocytic lineage. To test this hypothesis, we have taken advantage of interleukin-3-dependent 32Dcl3 hematopoietic precursor cells which, in addition to undergoing granulocytic differentiation in response to granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, were found to be induced for limited proliferation, but not differentiation, by granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. It was shown that ectopic expression of Egr-1 blocked granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-induced terminal granulocytic differentiation, consistent with previous findings. In addition, ectopic expression of Egr-1 endowed 32Dcl3 cells with ability to be induced by granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor for terminal differentiation exclusively along the macrophage lineage. Thus, evidence that Egr-1 potentiates terminal macrophage differentiation has been obtained, suggesting that Egr-1 plays a deterministic role in governing the development of hematopoietic cells along the macrophage lineage.


2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. 1824-1830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omer N. Koç ◽  
Stanton L. Gerson ◽  
Brenda W. Cooper ◽  
Mary Laughlin ◽  
Howard Meyerson ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: Patient response to hematopoietic progenitor-cell mobilizing regimens seems to vary considerably, making comparison between regimens difficult. To eliminate this inter-patient variability, we designed a cross-over trial and prospectively compared the number of progenitors mobilized into blood after granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) days 1 to 12 plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) days 7 to 12 (regimen G) with the number of progenitors after cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF days 3 to 14 (regimen C) in the same patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were randomized to receive either regimen G or C first (G1 and C1, respectively) and underwent two leukaphereses. After a washout period, patients were then crossed over to the alternate regimen (C2 and G2, respectively) and underwent two additional leukaphereses. The hematopoietic progenitor-cell content of each collection was determined. In addition, toxicity and charges were tracked. RESULTS: Regimen C (n = 50) resulted in mobilization of more CD34+ cells (2.7-fold/kg/apheresis), erythroid burst-forming units (1.8-fold/kg/apheresis), and colony-forming units–granulocyte-macrophage (2.2-fold/kg/apheresis) compared with regimen G given to the same patients (n = 46; paired t test, P < .01 for all comparisons). Compared with regimen G, regimen C resulted in better mobilization, whether it was given first (P = .025) or second (P = .02). The ability to achieve a target collection of ≥ 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg using two leukaphereses was 50% after G1 and 90% after C1. Three of the seven patients in whom mobilization was poor after G1 had ≥ 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg with two leukaphereses after C2. In contrast, when regimen G was given second (G2), seven out of 10 patients failed to achieve the target CD34+ cell dose despite adequate collections after C1. Thirty percent of the patients (nine of 29) given regimen C were admitted to the hospital because of neutropenic fever for a median duration of 4 days (range, 2 to 10 days). The higher cost of regimen C was balanced by higher CD34+ cell yield, resulting in equivalent charges based on cost per CD34+ cell collected. CONCLUSION: We report the first clinical trial that used a cross-over design showing that high-dose cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF results in mobilization of more progenitors then GM-CSF plus G-CSF when tested in the same patient regardless of sequence of administration, although the regimen is associated with greater morbidity. Patients who fail to achieve adequate mobilization after regimen G can be treated with regimen C as an effective salvage regimen, whereas patients who fail regimen C are unlikely to benefit from subsequent treatment with regimen G. The cross-over design allowed detection of significant differences between regimens in a small cohort of patients and should be considered in design of future comparisons of mobilization regimens.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document