A randomized study of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor applied duringand after chemotherapy in patients with poor risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a report from the HOVON Cooperative Group

Citation
Gj. Ossenkoppele et al., A randomized study of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor applied duringand after chemotherapy in patients with poor risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a report from the HOVON Cooperative Group, LEUKEMIA, 13(8), 1999, pp. 1207-1213
Citations number
25
Categorie Soggetti
Onconogenesis & Cancer Research
Journal title
LEUKEMIA
ISSN journal
08876924 → ACNP
Volume
13
Issue
8
Year of publication
1999
Pages
1207 - 1213
Database
ISI
SICI code
0887-6924(199908)13:8<1207:ARSOGC>2.0.ZU;2-2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of filgr astim as an adjunct to induction and consolidation chemotherapy in poor ris k patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Filgrastim was given both d uring and after chemotherapy with the objective to accelerate hematopoietic repopulation and enhance the efficacy of chemotherapy. In a prospective ra ndomized multicentre phase II trial, a total of 64 patients with poor risk primary MDS were randomized to receive either granulocyte colony-stimulatin g factor (G-CSF, filgrastim, AMGEN, Breda, The Netherlands) 5 mu g/kg/day s ubcutaneously or no G-CSF in addition to daunomycin (30 mg/m(2)/days 1, 2 a nd 3 intravenous bolus) and cytarabine (200 mg/m(2) days 1-7, continuous in fusion). The overall complete response rate was 63%: 73% for patients recei ving filgrastim as compared to 52% in the standard arm (P = 0.08). Overall survival at 2 years was estimated at 29% for patients assigned to the filgr astim arm and 16% for control patients (P = 0.22). The median time for reco very of granulocytes towards 1.0x10(9)/I post-chemotherapy was 23 days in t he filgrastim-treated patients vs 35 days in the standard arm (P = 0.015). There were no differences in time of platelet recovery, length of hospital stay, duration of antibiotic use or infectious complications between the tw o treatment groups. However the earlier recovery of neutrophils in the filg rastim group was associated with a reduced interval of 9 days between the i nduction and consolidation cycle. In patients with poor risk MDS the use of filgrastim during and after induction therapy results in a significantly r educed neutrophil recovery time. Further study may be warranted to see if t he apparent trend of the improved response to chemotherapy in combination w ith filgrastim can be confirmed in greater number of patients and to assess the effect of the addition of filgrastim on survival.