ArticleBone marrow transplantation2012
Etoposide plus G-CSF priming compared with G-CSF alone in patients with lymphoma improves mobilization without an increased risk of secondary myelodysplasia and leukemia.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized comparison of etoposide and cyclophosphamide for stem cell mobilization in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- [Comparison of etoposide combined with G-CSF and cyclophosphamide combined with G-CSF in mobilization of autologous peripheral hematopoietic stem cells in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2022Article
- [Advances in mobilization of autologous hematopoietic stem cells].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2019Article
- A single center's experience using four different front line mobilization strategies in lymphoma patients planned to undergo autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation.Bone marrow transplantation · 2017Article
- Optimizing Stem Cells Mobilization Strategies to Ameliorate Patient Outcomes: A Review of Guide- lines and Recommendations.International journal of hematology-oncology and stem cell research · 2017Review
- Outcomes and costs of autologous stem cell mobilization with chemotherapy plus G-CSF vs G-CSF alone.Bone marrow transplantation · 2013Article
- Effectiveness of etoposide chemomobilization in lymphoma patients undergoing auto-SCT.Bone marrow transplantation · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of etoposide (VP-16) for stem cell mobilization has been reported as a significant risk factor for the development of therapy-related myelodysplasia/therapy-related AML (tMDS/tAML) after transplantation. We compared the safety and effectiveness of VP-16+G-CSF (VP+G) to G-CSF alone for PBPC mobilization in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's lymphoma who underwent autologous transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic and Ohio State University. In the VP+G group, median total CD34+ cells collected were 9.34 × 10(6) per kg (range 0.97-180.89), with 42% of all patients having adequate (2 × 10(6) cells per kg) CD 34+ collection after 2 days of apheresis compared with a median in the G-CSF group of 3.83 × 10(6) per kg (range, 0.72-50.38), with only 16% patients having adequate collection after 2 days (P<0.001). tMDS/tAML occurred in 15 patients (2.3%) in the VP+G and in 12 patients (3.8%) receiving G-CSF alone. (P=0.62). Increased number of days of apheresis was associated with the risk of tMDS/tAML (hazard ratio (HR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.30, P<0.001). Priming regimen was not a significant variable for relapse-free survival or OS. The addition of etoposide significantly improves the effectiveness of mobilization at the cost of an increased incidence of neutropenic fever though with no mortalities. There is no evidence of increased incidence of tMDS/tAML in patients receiving VP+G compared with those mobilized with G-CSF alone.
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.