Timing Of Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor Research Articles

Different impacts of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration on allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant outcomes for adult acute myeloid leukemia according to graft type.

We retrospectively evaluated the impacts of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and its timing on posttransplant outcomes for 9766 adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) between 2013 and 2022 using a Japanese database. We separately evaluated three distinct cohorts based on graft type: 3248 received bone marrow transplantation (BMT), 3066 received peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT), and 3452 received single-unit cord blood transplantation (CBT). Multivariate analysis showed that G-CSF administration significantly accelerated neutrophil recovery after BMT, PBSCT, and CBT. However, it was associated with a higher risk of grades II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) across all graft types. Moreover, an increased incidence of overall chronic GVHD was observed with G-CSF administration in BMT and CBT patients, but not in PBSCT patients. G-CSF administration significantly improved overall survival (OS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) only following CBT. Regarding the timing of G-CSF, in comparison with late initiation of G-CSF (Days 5-10), early initiation (Days 0-4) did not provide benefits for hematopoietic recovery regardless of graft type. In contrast, late initiation was significantly associated with a lower risk of grades II-IV acute GVHD and better OS and LFS in CBT patients. These data demonstrated that G-CSF administration accelerated neutrophil recovery and increased the risk of grades II-IV acute GVHD across all graft types, but significantly improved survival outcomes but only following CBT. Therefore, routine use of G-CSF should be considered for CBT in adult patients with AML.

The timing of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant in the Pandemic

The timing of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant in the Pandemic

Effect of administration timing of postchemotherapy granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on host-immune cell recovery and CD8+ T-cell response

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), a hematopoietic growth factor, is a standard supportive therapy given during cancer treatment. It induces acceleration in neutrophil recovery through stimulation of mobilization of hematopoietic progenitors. Given that the latter is also induced by chemotherapy itself, the timing of administration of G-CSF postchemotherapy might impact the resultant overall effects. The present study aimed to determine the optimal timing of G-CSF postchemotherapy to exert its optimal effects on the immune cell recovery and its impact on antigen-specific CD8+ T-cell response. B6 mice were treated once with cyclophosphamide (4 mg/mouse; CTX) and then daily with G-CSF (5 g/mouse) from Days 1–5, 2–5 or 5–9 post-CTX treatment. The total numbers of various immune cell types were analyzed on Days 7, 9 and 12 post-CTX treatment. To evaluate effects on CD8+ T-cell response, a pmel-1 transgenic mouse model was used in combination with prime boost peptide vaccination therapy. The total number of white blood cells (WBC), neutrophils, monocytes, lymphocytes, granulocytes and dendritic cells (DC) were significantly increased after G-CSF treatment in particular when G-CSF was administered from Days 2–5 post-CTX treatment. Application of this timing of G-CSF and CTX treatment after adoptive transfer of T-cells followed by prime-boost vaccination with antigenic peptide did not block the expansion of the donor pmel-1 CD8+ T-cells. In conclusion, adjusting the timing of treatment with G-CSF postchemotherapy can optimize its promoting effects on recovery of myeloid cells without altering the associated antigen-specific immunity.

Neutrophil dynamics after chemotherapy and G-CSF: The role of pharmacokinetics in shaping the response

Chemotherapy has profound effects on the hematopoietic system, most notably leading to neutropenia. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is often used to deal with this neutropenia, but the response is highly variable. In this paper we examine the role of pharmacokinetics and delivery protocols in shaping the neutrophil responses to chemotherapy and G-CSF. Neutrophil responses to different protocols of chemotherapy administration with varying dosages, infusion times, and schedules are studied through a mathematical model. We find that a single dose of chemotherapy produces a damped oscillation in neutrophil levels, and short-term applications of chemotherapy can induce permanent oscillations in neutrophil level if there is a bistability in the system. In addition, we confirm previous findings [Zhuge et al., J. Theor. Biol., 293(2012), 111-120] that when periodic chemotherapy is given, there is a significant period of delivery that induces resonance in the system and exacerbates the corresponding neutropenia. The width of this resonant period peak increases with the recovery rate after a single chemotherapy, which is given by the real part of the dominant eigenvalue pair at the steady state, and both are determined by a single cooperativity coefficient in the feedback function for the neutrophils. Our numerical studies show that the neutropenia caused by chemotherapy can be overcome if G-CSF is given early after chemotherapy but can actually be worsened if G-CSF is given later, consistent with results reported in Zhuge et al. (2012). The nadir in neutrophil level is found to be more sensitive to the dosage of chemotherapy than that of the G-CSF. Furthermore, dependence of our results with changes in key pharmacokinetic parameters as well as initial functions are studied. Thus, this study illuminates the potential for destructive resonance leading to neutropenia in response to periodic chemotherapy, and explores and explains why the timing of G-CSF is so crucial for successful reversal of chemotherapy induced neutropenia.

Instent neointimal hyperplasia after percutaneous intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction and treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. Results from the stem cells in myocardial infarction (STEMMI) trial

Recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized pluripotent cells from the bone marrow are proposed to have a regenerative potential. Though, a report of excessive instent restenosis, in patients treated with G-CSF before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) warrants caution. Patients (n=59) enrolled in the STEMMI trial, a randomized and double blind study, comparing G-CSF and placebo after large ST-elevation myocardial infarctions, had an intracoronary ultrasound imaging at 6 months follow-up with a quantitative analysis of instent neointimal hyperplasia. During G-CSF treatment leukocyte counts, and CD34+ and CD45-/CD34- cell fractions in peripheral blood increased markedly (p<0.0001 vs. placebo). At follow-up, there were no differences in intracoronary late lumen loss, expressed as neointima volume per mm of stent (1.6 mm(3)± 1.2 [G-CSF group] vs. 1.9 mm(3)± 1.3 [placebo group]; p=0.38), and in minimal instent lumen area (5.4 mm(2)± 2.4 vs. 5.3 mm(2)± 2.6, p=0.90). In the placebo group, plasma concentration of stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) increased significantly after STEMI. This SDF-1 response was completely suppressed during G-CSF treatment. A rebound increase of SDF-1 was observed after withdrawal of G-CSF (p=0.001). Plasma concentration of SDF-1 at the time of stent implantation correlated positively to neointimal hyperplasia (p=0.025). G-CSF treatment, initiated after PCI, does not lead to excessive instent neointimal hyperplasia or restenosis in patients with STEMI. The timing of G-CSF, in relation to the PCI, might be important, as G-CSF influences SDF-1.

Optimal timing of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration after bone marrow transplantation

The positive role of G-CSF in hastening the myeloid recovery of patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (ALLO-BMT) or autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT) has recently been established. Considerable knowledge about adequate doses and route of administration has been accumulated in the past few years. Nonetheless, the optimal time to start growth-factor administration remains undetermined. We have performed a stratified study according to the source of hematopoietic progenitors (ALLO-BMT or ABMT), underlying disease and its stage, and acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimen and randomized patients in two arms: group A, which started G-CSF on day 0 (36 patients), and group B, which started on day +7 post-BMT (39 patients). The same dose (5 micrograms/kg/day) and route of administration were employed in both groups. We found no significant differences in the time to reach an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 0.1, 0.5, and 1 x 10(9)/l and 50 x 10(9) platelets/l (medians: 10 and 11, 14.5 and 14, 17 and 16, 23 and 24 days, respectively, in groups A and B). We did not find differences in the days of fever or days on antibiotic treatment with less than 1 x 10(9)/l ANC, rate of bacteriemia, or days of hospitalization in both groups. In contrast, a considerable saving of G-CSF in B group was found (mean days of infusion in group A, 18, versus 11 in group B) (p < 0.0001). This is equivalent to a saving of 1120 $US per patient.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Optimal timing of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration after bone marrow transplantation

Optimal timing of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration after bone marrow transplantation