Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Progenitor Cell Mobilisation

Single vs twice daily G-CSF dose for peripheral blood stem cells harvest in normal donors and children with non-malignant diseases

Bone Marrow Transplantation volume 25, pages 931–935 (2000)Cite this article

Abstract

The optimal dose and schedule of G-CSF for mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) is not well defined. G-CSF mobilization was performed in a group of healthy donors and paediatric patients for autologous back-up before receiving allogeneic stem cell transplant. Seventeen consecutive subjects who received G-CSF at 5 μg/kg/dose twice daily (group A) were compared with a historical control group of 25 subjects who received a single daily dose of 10 μg/kg/day G-CSF (group B). Double blood volume apheresis for PBSC collection was started on day 5. G-CSF was continued and apheresis repeated until the targeted CD34+ cell dose was achieved. Both groups were comparable for sex, age, body weight and reason for PBSC collection. Over two-thirds of the subjects in both groups were less than 16 years of age. The G-CSF priming and apheresis were well tolerated. When the first day apheresis products were analyzed, group A resulted in significantly higher yield of total nucleated cells (5.91 vs 3.92 × 108/kg, P = 0.013), mononuclear cells (5.73 vs 3.92 × 108/kg, P = 0.017), CD34+ cells (2.80 vs 1.69 × 106/kg, P = 0.049) and colony-forming units (107 vs 54 × 104/kg, P = 0.010) as compared with group B. We conclude that the two dose schedule is more efficient in mobilizing PBSC in normal donors and children with non-malignant diseases. This approach may reduce the number of aphereses required and thus reduce the transplant cost. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2000) 25, 931–935.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. To LB, Roberts MM, Haylock DN et al. Comparison of haematological recovery times and supportive care requirements of autologous recovery phase peripheral blood stem cell transplants, autologous bone marrow transplants and allogeneic bone marrow transplants Bone Marrow Transplant 1992 9: 277–284

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwartzberg L, Birch R, Blanco R et al. Rapid and sustained hematopoietic reconstitution by peripheral blood stem cell infusion alone following high-dose chemotherapy BoneMarrow Transplant 1993 11: 369–374

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmitz N, Linch DC, Dreger P et al. Randomised trial of filgrastim-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation versus autologous bone marrow transplantation in lymphoma patients (see comments) (published erratum appears in Lancet 1996; 347: 914) Lancet 1996 347: 353–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bensinger WI, Clift R, Martin P et al. Allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies: a retrospective comparison with marrow transplantation Blood 1996 88: 2794–2800

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schmitz N, Bacigalupo A, Hasenclever D et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation vs filgrastim-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in patients with early leukaemia: first results of a randomised multicentre trial of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant 1998 21: 995–1003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dreger P, Haferlach T, Eckstein V et al. G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells for allogeneic transplantation: safety, kinetics of mobilization, and composition of the graft Br J Haematol 1994 87: 609–613

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Russell JA, Luider J, Weaver M et al. Collection of progenitor cells for allogeneic transplantation from peripheral blood of normal donors Bone Marrow Transplant 1995 15: 111–115

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderlini P, Donato M, Chan KW et al. Allogeneic blood progenitor cell collection in normal donors after mobilization with filgrastim: the MD Anderson Cancer Center experience Transfusion 1999 39: 555–560

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Grigg AP, Roberts AW, Raunow H et al. Optimizing dose and scheduling of filgrastim (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) for mobilization and collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells in normal volunteers (see comments) Blood 1995 86: 4437–4445

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoglund M, Smedmyr B, Simonsson B et al. Dose-dependent mobilization of haematopoietic progenitor cells in healthy volunteers receiving glycosylated rHuG-CSF Bone Marrow Transplant 1996 18: 19–27

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Waller CF, Bertz H, Wenger MK et al. Mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells for allogeneic transplantation: efficacy and toxicity of a high-dose rhG-CSF regimen Bone Marrow Transplant 1996 18: 279–283

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dreger P, Haferlach T, Eckstein V et al. G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells for allogeneic transplantation: safety, kinetics of mobilization, and composition of the graft Br J Haematol 1994 87: 609–613

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Russell NH . The place of blood stem cells in allogeneic transplantation Br J Haematol 1996 93: 747–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stroncek DF, Clay ME, Herr G et al. The kinetics of G-CSF mobilization of CD34+ cells in healthy people Transfus Med 1997 7: 19–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. de Haas M, Kerst JM, van der Schoot CE et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration to healthy volunteers: analysis of the immediate activating effects on circulating neutrophils Blood 1994 84: 3885–3894

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kroger N, Zeller W, Hassan HT et al. Stem cell mobilization with G-CSF alone in breast cancer patients: higher progenitor cell yield by delivering divided doses (2 × 5μg/kg) compared to a single dose (1 × 10μg/kg) Bone Marrow Transplant 1999 23: 125–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Arbona C, Prosper F, Benet I et al. Comparison between once a day vs twice a day G-CSF for mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) in normal donors for allogeneic PBPC transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant 1998 22: 39–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sekhsaria S, Fleisher TA, Vowells S et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor recruitment of CD34+ progenitors to peripheral blood: impaired mobilization in chronic granulomatous disease and adenosine deaminase-deficient severe combined immunodeficiency disease patients Blood 1996 88: 1104–1112

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Li K, Wong A, Li CK et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood stem cells in beta-thalassemia patients: kinetics of mobilization and composition of apheresis product Exp Hematol 1999 27: 526–532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Anderlini P, Przepiorka D, Seong C et al. Factors affecting mobilization of CD34+ cells in normal donors treated with filgrastim Transfusion 1997 37: 507–512

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Miflin G, Charley C, Stainer C et al. Stem cell mobilization in normal donors for allogeneic transplantation: analysis of safety and factors affecting efficacy Br J Haematol 1996 95: 345–348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Demirer T, Buckner CD, Bensinger WI . Optimization of peripheral blood stem cell mobilization Stem Cells 1996 14: 106–116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Paediatrics, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    V Lee, CK Li, MMK Shing, KW Chik, K Li, DC Zhao, DH Lai, A Wong & PMP Yuen

  2. Department of Anatomical and Cellular Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    KS Tsang

Authors
  1. V Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. CK Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. MMK Shing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. KW Chik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. KS Tsang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. DC Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. DH Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. A Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. PMP Yuen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, V., Li, C., Shing, M. et al. Single vs twice daily G-CSF dose for peripheral blood stem cells harvest in normal donors and children with non-malignant diseases. Bone Marrow Transplant 25, 931–935 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1702338

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1702338

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links