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.
Akard
L P
LP
Indiana Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Indianapolis 46202, USA. lakard@ibmtindy.com
Thompson
J M
JM
Dugan
M J
MJ
Wiemann
M
M
Greenspan
A
A
Hanks
S
S
Swinney
M
M
Nyhuis
A
A
Jansen
J
J
D000328:Adult; D018952:Antigens, CD34; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003520:Cyclophosphamide / Q000494:pharmacology*; D017707:Erythrocyte Transfusion; D005047:Etoposide / Q000494:pharmacology*; D005260:Female; D016179:Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor / Q000494:pharmacology*; D019650:Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization; D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D007937:Leukapheresis; D016555:Matched-Pair Analysis; D008875:Middle Aged; D017713:Platelet Transfusion
D018952:Antigens, CD34; D016179:Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; D005047:Etoposide; D003520:Cyclophosphamide