Trial reportBone marrow transplantation2006
A randomized study comparing filgrastim versus lenograstim versus molgramostim plus chemotherapy for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization.
Trial report in Bone marrow transplantation, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim in the mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Trial
- Review
- Hematopoietic stem cell mobilization strategies to support high-dose chemotherapy: A focus on relapsed/refractory germ cell tumors.World journal of clinical oncology · 2021Review
- Expression and one step intein-mediated purification of biologically active human G-CSF in Escherichia coli.Molecular biology reports · 2020Article
- Construction of a Pichia pastoris strain efficiently producing recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) and study of its biological activity on bone marrow cells.Molecular biology reports · 2020Article
- Lenograstim and filgrastim in the febrile neutropenia prophylaxis of hospitalized patients: efficacy and cost of the prophylaxis in a retrospective survey.Journal of blood medicine · 2019Article
- Evaluation of effectiveness of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor therapy to cancer patients after chemotherapy: a meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Impact of Non-Pulmonary Visceral Metastases in the Prognosis and Practice of Metastatic Testicular Germ Cell Tumors.Oncology reviews · 2016Review
- Novel agents and approaches for stem cell mobilization in normal donors and patients.Bone marrow transplantation · 2012Review
- Review
- Comparison between filgrastim and lenograstim plus chemotherapy for mobilization of PBPCs.Bone marrow transplantation · 2010Article
- A glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor produced in a novel protein production system (AVI-014) in healthy subjects: a first-in human, single dose, controlled study.BMC clinical pharmacology · 2009Article
- Granulocyte and erythropoietic stimulating proteins after high-dose chemotherapy for myeloma.Bone marrow transplantation · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial to assess the mobilizing efficacy of filgrastim, lenograstim and molgramostim following a disease-specific chemotherapy regimen. Mobilization consisted of high-dose cyclophosphamide in 45 cases (44%), and cisplatin/ifosfamide/etoposide or vinblastine in 22 (21%), followed by randomization to either filgrastim or lenograstim or molgramostim at 5 microg/kg/day. One hundred and three patients were randomized, and 82 (79%) performed apheresis. Forty-four (43%) patients were chemonaive, whereas 59 (57%) were pretreated. A median number of one apheresis per patient (range, 1-3) was performed. The median number of CD34+ cells obtained after mobilization was 8.4 x 10(6)/kg in the filgrastim arm versus 5.8 x 10(6)/kg in the lenograstim arm versus 4.0 x 10(6)/kg in the molgramostim arm (P=0.1). A statistically significant difference was observed for the median number of days of growth factor administration in favor of lenograstim (12 days) versus filgrastim (13 days) and molgramostim (14 days) (P<0.0001) and for the subgroup of chemonaive patients (12 days) versus pretreated patients (14 days) (P<0.001). In conclusion, all three growth factors were efficacious in mobilizing peripheral blood progenitor cells with no statistically significant difference between CD34+ cell yield and the different regimens, and the time to apheresis is likely confounded by the different mobilization regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.