Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Kang Howson-Jan
Morel Rubinger
Jeff Szer
Lothar Huebsch
S. Lachance
Stephanie J. Lee
Cynthia L. Toze
Ronan Foley
Holly Kerr
David Szwajcer
Irwin Walker
Fahad Almohareb
Ian D. Lewis
Diane L. Fairclough
Stephen Couban
Amina Kariminia
Raewyn Broady
Clayton A. Smith
Nadeem Chaudhri
Michel Lalancette
Richard Doocey
Jeffrey H. Lipton
Mahmoud Aljurf
Sabine Ivison
Gerald M. Devins
Kirk R. Schultz
Megan K. Levings
Tony Panzarella
Source :
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 22:1410-1415
Publication Year :
2016
Publisher :
Elsevier BV, 2016.

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.

Details

ISSN :
10838791
Volume :
22
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....bf13f9b09ab1521a4562a7cfaf3004c1
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.04.017