Matched-pair analysis of hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization using G-CSF vs. cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF: enhanced CD34+ cell collections are not necessarily cost-effective.

Using matched-pair analysis, we compared two popular methods of stem cell mobilization in 24 advanced-stage breast cancer patients who underwent two consecutive mobilizing procedures as part of a tandem transplant protocol. For the first cycle, 10 microg/kg/day granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was given and apheresis commenced on day 4 and continued for < or =5 days (median 3 days). One week after the first cycle of apheresis, 4000 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide, 400 mg/m2 etoposide, and 10 microg/kg G-CSF were administered for < or =16 days (cycle 2). Apheresis was initiated when the white blood cell (WBC) count exceeded 5000 cells/microL and continued for < or =5 days (median 3 days). Mean values of peripheral blood WBC (31,700+/-3200 vs. 30,700+/-3300/microL) were not significantly different between cycles 1 and 2. Mean number of mononuclear cells (MNC) collected per day was slightly greater with G-CSF mobilization than with the combination of chemotherapy and G-CSF (2.5+/-0.21x10(8) vs. 1.8+/-0.19x10(8) cells/kg). Mean daily CD34+ cell yield, however, was nearly six times higher (12.9+/-4.4 vs. 2.2+/-0.5x10(6)/kg; p = 0.01) with chemotherapy plus G-CSF. With G-CSF alone, 13% of aphereses reached the target dose of 5x10(6) CD34+ cells/kg in one collection vs. 57% with chemotherapy plus G-CSF. Transfusions of red blood cells or platelets were necessary in 18 of 24 patients in cycle 2. Three patients were hospitalized with fever for a median of 3 days after cycle 2. No patients received transfusions or required hospitalization during mobilization with G-CSF alone. Resource utilization (cost of drugs, aphereses, cryopreservation, transfusions, hospitalization) was calculated comparing the median number of collections to obtain a target CD34+ cell dose of 5x10(6) cells/kg: four using G-CSF vs. one using the combination in this data set. Resources for G-CSF mobilization cost $7326 vs. $8693 for the combination, even though more apheresis procedures were performed using G-CSF mobilization. The cost of chemotherapy administration, more doses of G-CSF, transfusions, and hospitalizations caused cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF to be more expensive than G-CSF alone. A less toxic and less expensive treatment than cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF is needed to be more cost-effective than G-CSF alone for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization.

Impaired stem cell collection by consecutive courses of high-dose mobilizing chemotherapy using cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF.

Tandem cycles of myeloablative chemotherapy can increase dose intensity and total dose of chemotherapy, but sufficient numbers of progenitor cells must be collected to ensure hematologic recovery after each treatment. This study was undertaken to determine if two courses of mobilizing chemotherapy given 4 weeks apart using cyclophosphamide 4000 mg/m2 and etoposide 400 mg/m2, combined with G-CSF 5-10 mg/kg on days 3-16 could each provide sufficient numbers of peripheral blood progenitor cells to support tandem cycles of myeloablative chemotherapy in 20 patients with stage IV breast cancer. Leukapheresis of blood with WBC > 1000/mm3 was performed daily for up to five collections (days 12-16), and mononuclear cells, CFU-GM, and CD34+ cells were compared between the first and second collections. The second course of mobilizing treatment resulted in similar numbers of mononuclear cells collected but far fewer CFU-GM and CD34+ progenitor cells. This prevented using the second collection of progenitor cells as the sole source for the second transplant. The data suggest that a second course of cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and G-CSF given 4 weeks after the first leads to progenitor cell depletion, and efforts to increase the yield of blood-derived progenitors should focus on the initial mobilizing procedure.