Short and long term effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during induction therapy in acute myeloid leukemia patients younger than 65: Results of a randomized multicenter phase III trial

Beksaç, Meral; Ali, Rıdvan; Özçelik, Tülay; Özcan, Muhıt; Özcebe, Osman; Bayık, Mahmut; Paydaş, Semra; Büyükaşık, Yahya; İlhan, Osman; Özkalemkaş, Fahir; Gürman, Günhan; Akan, Hamdı; Soydan, Ender; Tunalı, Ahmet

doi:10.1016/j.leukres.2010.07.005

Cited by 12 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the sex discrepancy between groups could have biased the survival results. Women may also have a better response to G‐CSF than men . If so, the protection from febrile neutropenia may have been magnified by the increased number of women in the group who received G‐CSF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neutropenia‐Associated Outcomes in Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Cytarabine Consolidation Chemotherapy with or without Granulocyte Colony‐Stimulating Factor

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neutropenia‐Associated Outcomes in Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Cytarabine Consolidation Chemotherapy with or without Granulocyte Colony‐Stimulating Factor

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] G-CSF prophylaxis during and following induction and consolidation was not shown to adversely affect the CR rate, the RI or the LFS in meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials. 21 On the other hand, however, there are also recent data indicating that under particular circumstances G-CSF may stimulate leukemogenesis in AML.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of G-CSF to hasten neutrophil recovery after auto-SCT for AML is not associated with increased relapse incidence: a report from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT

Czerw

Labopin

Gorin

et al. 2014

Bone Marrow Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Application of G-CSF in AML is controversial as leukemic blasts may express receptors interacting with the cytokine, which may stimulate leukemia growth. We retrospectively analyzed the impact of G-CSF use to accelerate neutrophil recovery after auto-SCT on outcome. Adults with AML in first CR autografted between 1994 and 2010 were included. Nine hundred and seventy two patients were treated with G-CSF after auto-SCT whereas 1121 were not. BM and PB were used as a source of stem cells in 454 (22%) and 1639 (78%) cases, respectively. The incidence of relapse at 5 years in the BM-auto-SCT group was 38% for patients receiving post-transplant G-CSF and 43% for those not treated with G-CSF, P = 0.46. In the PB-auto-SCT cohort, respective probabilities were 48% and 49%, P = 0.49. No impact of the use of G-CSF could be demonstrated with respect to the probability of leukemia-free survival: in the BM-auto-SCT group, 51% for G-CSF(+) and 48% for G-CSF(− ), P = 0.73; in PB-auto-SCT group, 42% for G-CSF(+) and 43% for G-CSF( − ), P = 0.83. Although G-CSF administration significantly shortened the neutropenic phase, no beneficial effect was observed with regard to non-relapse mortality. In patients with AML, the use of G-CSF after auto-SCT is not associated with increased risk of relapse irrespective of the source of stem cells used.Bone Marrow Transplantation (2014) 49, 950-954;

show abstract

“…[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] These studies have also shown that the time to neutrophil recovery is significantly shorter in AML patients receiving G-CSF compared to control patients without G-CSF support. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] With regard to the duration of hospitalization the data are conflicting. Some studies showed a significant shortening of the duration of hospitalization whereas other studies were unable to confirm these results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…22,23 Granulocyte colony-stimulating growth factor (G-CSF), a major regulator of neutrophil development and function, has been described to reduce the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and to prevent associated complications in AML patients. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] The use of G-CSF (filgrastim) is safe and is not affecting the CR rate or duration of CR. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] These studies have also shown that the time to neutrophil recovery is significantly shorter in AML patients receiving G-CSF compared to control patients without G-CSF support.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] The use of G-CSF (filgrastim) is safe and is not affecting the CR rate or duration of CR. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] These studies have also shown that the time to neutrophil recovery is significantly shorter in AML patients receiving G-CSF compared to control patients without G-CSF support. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] With regard to the duration of hospitalization the data are conflicting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intensive consolidation with G‐CSF support: Tolerability, safety, reduced hospitalization, and efficacy in acute myeloid leukemia patients ≥60 years

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of intensified consolidation therapy employing fludarabine and ARA-C in cycle 1 and intermediate-dose ARA-C (IDAC) in cycles 2 through 4, in elderly acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients and to analyze the effects of pegfilgrastim on the duration of neutropenia, overall toxicity, and hospitalization-time during consolidation in these patients. Thirty nine elderly patients with de novo AML (median age 69.9 years) who achieved complete remission (CR) after induction-chemotherapy were analyzed. To examine the effect of pegfilgrastim on neutropenia and hospitalization, we compared cycles 2 and 4 where pegfilgrastim was given routinely from day 6 (IDAC-P) with cycle 3 where pegfilgrastim was only administered in case of severe infections and/or prolonged neutropenia. All four planned cycles were administered in 23/39 patients (59.0%); 5/39 patients (12.8%) received 3 cycles, 3/39 (7.7%) 2 cycles, and 8/39 (20.5%) one consolidation-cycle. The median duration of severe neutropenia was 7 days in cycle 2 (IDAC-P), 11.5 days in cycle 3 (IDAC), and 7.5 days in cycle 4 (IDAC-P) (P < .05). Median overall survival was 1.1 years and differed significantly between patients aged <75 and ≥75 years (P < .05). The probability to be alive after 5 years was 32%. Together, intensified consolidation can be administered in AML patients ≥60, and those who are <75 may benefit from this therapy. Routine administration of pegfilgrastim during consolidation shortens the time of neutropenia and hospitalization in these patients.

show abstract

Short and long term effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during induction therapy in acute myeloid leukemia patients younger than 65: Results of a randomized multicenter phase III trial

Cited by 12 publications

References 35 publications

Neutropenia‐Associated Outcomes in Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Cytarabine Consolidation Chemotherapy with or without Granulocyte Colony‐Stimulating Factor

Neutropenia‐Associated Outcomes in Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Cytarabine Consolidation Chemotherapy with or without Granulocyte Colony‐Stimulating Factor

Use of G-CSF to hasten neutrophil recovery after auto-SCT for AML is not associated with increased relapse incidence: a report from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT

Intensive consolidation with G‐CSF support: Tolerability, safety, reduced hospitalization, and efficacy in acute myeloid leukemia patients ≥60 years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About