-
bone marrow transplantation
(BMT) (BMSC
)
History : in 1939 Osgood unsuccessfully
infused a few milliliters of marrow into patients with aplastic anemia.
In 1949, Jacobson discovered that shielding the spleen protected mice from
lethal irradiation. Lorenz performed allogenic BMT in animals protected
by total irradiation. His findings, and research by Barnes and colleagues,
demonstrated that a cellular rather than a humoral factor played a role
in graft survival. Vanbekkum, DeVries, and other scientists performed important
experiments to study immunological reactions in transplantation recipients.
They demonstrated that successfully grafted allogeneic marrow cells could
later produce an immunological reaction against host tissues; this phenomenon
is now known as GVHD. Experimental canine studies during the 1960s resulted
in important discoveries that were applicable to human transplantation.
Total body irradiation did not seem to prevent GVHD; mismatched canine
leukocyte antigen always resulted in graft rejection or GVHD. Methotrexate
was also found to be an immunosuppressive agent that could prevent or ameliorate
the graft versus host reaction. Although initial attempts at allogeneic
BMT in the 1950s and 1960s were unsuccessful, renewed attempts occurred
after additional knowledge of the HLA system was obtained. Getty performed
a successful allogeneic marrow graft in a patient with severe combined
immunologic deficiency using a sibling donor with identical HLA. 2 similar
successes were reported around the same time. These patients did not require
immunosuppressive therapy and survived for > 25 years. In the 1970s and
1980s, clinical BMT required matched HLA haplotypes between the donor and
recipient. Although earlier BMT procedures occurred between siblings, current
molecular techniques have enabled the precise characterization of MHC genes
and have allowed the possibility of matching unrelated individuals. In
the 1970s, researchers performed a large number of BMT procedures using
HLA-matched sibling donors for patients with end-stage leukemia or aplastic
anemia. These endeavors resulted in mixed success because BMT was only
considered for patients with advanced leukemia after conventional therapy
failed. In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers noted that BMT performed at
first remission or after first relapse resulted in significantly prolonged
survival. BMT procedures for treating other disorders, such as thalassemia
major and sickle cell disease, were also successful when the procedure
was performed at an earlier stage. Because stem cells have been shown to
be present in peripheral blood, these cells have now been used for autologous
grafting. Extensive studies reviewed by Korngold and Brent have established
the role of both T cells and histocompatibility systems in the GVHD reaction.
Even with HLA-matched sibling donors, GVHD occurs half of all patients.
Although corticosteroids and methotrexate partially ameliorated GVHD in
early studies, cyclosporine in combination with other drugs have proven
superior in subsequent studies. Following major efforts to determine the
effectiveness of autologous BMT in the 1970s and 1980s, autologous BMT
has become the therapy of choice for patients with malignant lymphoma and
for selected patients with acute myelocytic leukemia and other malignancies.
Recent research has also shown that a large number of stem cells from peripheral
blood could be harvested following cytotoxic chemotherapy and specifically
after growth factor administration. Following high-dose chemotherapy, PBSCT
results in more rapid recovery of platelets than BMT. In the future, stem
cell transplantation may allow many patients to attain a state of minimal
residual disease so that other treatments, such as chemotherapy maintenance,
monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, nonspecific immune modulators, and dendritic
cell infusions, may be performedref1,
ref2,
ref3
Removing RBCs from BM buffy coat products :
-
inverted spin procedure removes a median value of 81.2% of the RBCs,
while still recovering a median of 94.3% of the mononuclear cells (median:
0.35 x 108/kg; range: 0.17-0.9 x 108/kg). The median
volume of RBCs remaining in the product is 15.0 mL (range: 7.3-21.9 mL).
The CD34+ cell dose of the final product ranged from 1.0 x 106/kg
to 4.8 x 106 cells/kg (median: 1.9 x 106/kg). Granulocyte
recovery (defined as ANC count >or=500/mL for
a period of 3 consecutive days) ranged from 18-30 days post-infusion of
the allograft (median: 24.0 days)ref.
Only 2-3 ml of blood should be sampled per bone marrow aspiration : if
5-10 ml are samples, the number of T lymphocytes increases
-
peripheral
blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) (peripheral
blood progenitor cell (PBPC)
)
: easier accessibility and availability, faster engraftment of neutrophil
and platelets when compared to standard bone marrow transplantref.
PBPC collection in children weighing </=25 kg is hampered by technical
and clinical problems related to vascular access, low total blood volume,
anticoagulation, side effects, and psychological impact but large-volume
leukapheresis (LVL) is a safe and effective procedureref
Mobilization
of HSCs into PB : recruitment of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells
to the blood after administration of treatment.
-
cytokine-mobilized PBSCs (expecially in elderlies):
-
G-CSF
mobilization (30-fold increase) coincides in vivo with a decrease
in BM SDF-1 concentration related to SDF-1 cleavage by marrow serine proteasesref1,
ref2
and dipeptidyl peptidase IV (CD26)
ref1,
ref2.
Furthermore, treating HSPCs by pertussis toxin (PT), which causes an interruption
of Gai-protein signaling, did not
affect their BM engraftmentref
but induced their release in the peripheral bloodref,
suggesting that a Gai-protein signaling
identical to that mediated by CXCR4
receptor or other chemokine receptors must be required for HSPC retention
in BM microenvironmentref1,
ref2,
ref3.
Consistent with the hypothesis that the CXCR4/SDF-1 axis plays a major
role in the retention of hematopoietic cells, it has been shown that elevated
numbers of granulocytic precursors were present in the peripheral blood
of mice reconstituted with CXCR4–/– FL cellsref1,
ref2.
The ribosomal
protein SA (RPSA) / 67 kDa laminin receptor (67LR) is a non-integrin
cell-surface receptor with high affinity for laminin which plays a key
role in tumor invasion and metastasis. The role of 67LR in G-CSF-induced
mobilization of CD34+ HSCs from 35 healthy donors was investigated.
G-CSF-mobilized HSCs, including CD34+/CD38-- cells,
showed increased 67LR expression, as compared with unstimulated marrow
HSCs; noteworthy, the level of 67LR expression in G-CSF-mobilized HSCs
significantly correlated with mobilization efficiency. During G-CSF- induced
HSC mobilization, the expression of laminin receptors switched from 6 integrins,
which mediated laminin-dependent adhesion of steady-state human marrow
HSCs, to 67LR, responsible for G-CSF-mobilized HSC adhesion and migration
toward laminin. In vitro G-CSF treatment, alone or combined with
exposure to marrow-derived endothelial cells, induced 67LR up-regulation
in marrow HSCs; moreover, anti-67LR antibodies significantly inhibited
transendothelial migration of G-CSF-stimulated marrow HSCs. Finally, G-
CSF-induced mobilization in mice was associated with 67LR up-regulation
both in circulating and marrow CD34+ cells, and anti-67LR antibodies
significantly reduced HSC mobilization, providing the first in vivo
evidence for 67LR involvement in stem cell egress from bone marrow after
G-CSF administration. In conclusion, 67LR upregulation in G-CSF-mobilized
HSCs correlates with their successful mobilization and reflects its increase
in marrow HSCs, which contributes to the egress from bone marrow by mediating
laminin-dependent cell adhesion and transendothelial migrationref.
A total of 138 patients whose stem cell mobilization failed following chemotherapy
and G-CSF at a dose of 5 mg/kg/d were given
a higher dose of G-CSF (10 mg/kg/d) for
5 days after a 7-day resting period. HSC mobilization was successful in
90 patients, who yielded a median of 3.5x106 CD34+
cells/kg, partially successful in 17 patients (1-2.4x106 CD34+
cells/kg) and failed in the remaining 31 patientsref.
Anyway high-dose G-CSF alone was inefficient as second mobilization regimen
in fludarabin-cyclophosphamide-treated CLL patients who failed to mobilize
after chemotherapy and G-CSFref.
The HSC mobilization-associated granulocytosis severely worsens acute renal
failureref
-
pegfilgrastim
,
in combination with salvage chemotherapy, is a predictable and highly effective
CD34+ stem cells mobilization regimen in pretreated lymphoma
patients. This was an open-label phase II study including 25 pretreated
patients (Hodgkin's disease=4; aggressive NHL=21). The primary end-point
of the study was the successful mobilization of a target cell dose of 2x106
CD34+ cells/kg in lymphoma patients receiving ifosfamide, epirubicin
and etoposide (IEV) chemotherapy and a fixed dose (6 mg) of pegfilgrastim
given as single subcutaneous injection. Following chemotherapy, all patients
had grade 4 neutropenia that lasted a median of 1.5 days (1-3). Pegfilgrastim
treatment was well tolerated and only 2/25 patients required pain-control
medication. CD34+ cells were mobilized in all patients. The
median (range) peak value of peripheral blood CD34+ cells after
IEV chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim was 141x106/L (12.8-386)
and occurred almost invariably on day +14 (13-16). 23 of the 25 patients
underwent a single standard volume leukapheresis to collect a median of
8.7x106 CD34+ cells/kg (1.78-17.3). 24/25 patients
(96%) reached the target cell dose of 2x106 CD34+
cells/kg. High concentrations of circulating CD34+ cells (>
50x106/L) were observed for several days after the achievement
of the peak value. All the study patients were transplanted with their
pegfilgrastim-mobilized CD34+ cells and showed a rapid and sustained
engraftment after high-dose chemotherapyref.
Pegfilgrastim effectively mobilizes PBSC in a poor mobilizer multiple myeloma
patientref
-
in allogeneic HSC donorsref
-
in rhesus monkeys, rhPlGF-1 alone had no mobilization effect, whereas rhPlGF-1
(260 mg/kg/day) plus rhG-CSF (100 mg/kg/day)
increased rhG-CSF-elicited mobilization of CFCs, HPP-CFCs and LTC-ICs per
ml blood by 5-, 7- and 15-fold, respectivelyref
-
G-CSF
+ SCF
in poor mobilisers : a predictive model [PBSC expected = 0.6+(G-CSF-based
total collection)+2 (rHuSCF-based day 1 collection)] to calculate the cumulative
total of PBSC expected following a maximum of five leukapheresesref1,
ref2.
Failure has been reportedref
-
G-CSF
+ GM-CSF
: there is no difference between high-dose G-CSF (32 mg/kg/day)
or G-CSF(10 mg/kg/day)+GM-CSF (5 mg/kg/day)ref
-
G-CSF
+ GH
ref
-
FLT3L
ref1,
ref2,
ref3
-
CXCR4
antagonistsref1,
ref2,
ref3,
ref4,
ref5
-
induction of CXCL12 / SDF-1
plasma elevationref1,
ref2
-
endotoxins
serve as cofactors in cytokine-induced mobilization. Modification of the
endotoxin content by antibiotic treatment may affect the yield of cytokine-induced
mobilizationref
-
polyanionsref
-
combination mobilization (200-fold increase) : PBSC peak at day
+12 (collect when CD34+ cells > 20/ml)
-
low-dose cyclophosphamide
(1.5 g/m2) plus lenograstim
is a safe and effective mobilizing regimenref
-
ifosfamide
(1.8 g/m2 per day for 5 days) + carboplatin
(400 mg/m2 per day for 2 days) + etoposide
(100 mg/m2 per day for 5 days) (ICE) /IL-11
(50-100 mg/kg per day) + G-CSF
(5 mg/kg per day) is successful in mobilizing
large numbers of CD34+ PBSC cells with a limited number (one)
of apheresis collections in patients that have previously been heavily
pretreated with chemotherapy/radiotherapy
-
high doses of cyclophosphamide
(600 mg/m2 twice daily for 10 doses) and etoposide
(200 mg/m2 twice daily for 10 doses (continuous; n=57) or 2
g/m2 over 10 hours on day 5 of etoposide (bolus; n=22)) + filgrastim
(5 mg/kg/d beginning day 14) to mobilize
autologous hematopoietic progenitor cells in 79 patients with high-risk
or relapsed/primary refractory NHL, MM, and Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia.
59% of patients achieved the primary end point (a CD34 cell dose of 5 million/kg
with a single leukapheresis). More bolus etoposide patients achieved the
primary end point (86%) compared with continuous etoposide patients (47%;
P<.0001). The CD34 cell dose collected was greater in bolus etoposide
patients (44 million/kg) than in continuous etoposide patients (10.9 million
per kilogram; P<.0001). Patients took 3 weeks to recover >500/ml
neutrophils and >20000/ml platelets after cyclophosphamide
and etoposide. The overall response rate was 69% for NHL patients and 71%
for MM/WM patients. The TR; was 2.5%. 16% of surviving patients experienced
grade>or=3 nonhematologic toxicity. Patients receiving bolus etoposide
had significantly less grade>or=2 oral mucositis, less use of TPN, and
less need for red blood cell and platelet transfusions. 64 patients (81%)
underwent autologous HSCT, with prompt engraftment. 4 patients (5%) did
not undergo autologous HSCT because of toxicity from high-dose cyclophosphamide
and etoposideref
The numbers of T cells, CD34+ progenitor cells and monocytes, along with
many other cell subsets, have been higher in PBSC grafts compared with
marrow grafts (Dreger et al, 1994; Korbling et al, 1995; Ottinger et al,
1996; Theilgaard-Monch et al, 1999; Storek et al, 2001). Several studies
have suggested that the cellular composition of PBSC grafts affected engraftment
kinetics and clinical outcomes after allogeneic HCT. For instance, T-cell
depletion of PBSC grafts resulted in higher relapse rates after myeloablative
HCT compared with unmanipulated grafts (Barge et al, 2001; Chakraverty
et al, 2001), and graft rejection was recently reported with T-cell depleted
PBSC grafts after non-myeloablative conditioning (Kreiter et al, 2001).
Furthermore, higher doses of CD34+ cells within PBSC grafts were shown
to increase the risk of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after
conventional and reduced-intensity conditioning for human leucocyte antigen
(HLA)-identical sibling HCT (Zaucha et al, 2001; Perez-Simon et al, 2003).
In addition, improved overall disease-free survivals have been reported
with PBSC compared with marrow after both myeloablative and non-myeloablative
HCT in patients with advanced disease (Bensinger et al, 2001; Maris et
al, 2003). Another study noted that higher numbers of CD14+ cells (monocytes)
with decreased expression of co-stimulatory molecules within the PBSC grafts
might impair the proliferation rate of donor T cells (Tanaka et al, 1998).
This was cited as a possible reason for similar rates of acute GVHD after
PBSC compared with marrow grafts despite the approximately 10-fold higher
numbers of T cells given with PBSC products.
Both T cells and natural killer (NK) cells from HCT donors have been
implicated in the graft-versus-tumor (GVT) effects after allogeneic HCT
(Truitt & Atasoylu, 1991; Glass et al, 1996; Giebel et al, 2003). The
GVT effect of T cells has been indirectly confirmed by the results of T-cell
depletion trials (Link, 1999; Barge et al, 2001; Chakraverty et al, 2001).
Preclinical studies in the canine HCT model showed that grafts created
their own marrow space via subclinical graft-versus-host (GVH) reactions,
thereby ensuring stable engraftment (Storb et al, 1999). Data from clinical
trials in patients showed that a low degree of donor T-cell chimaerism
on day +28 after non-myeloablative HCT was associated with an increased
risk of rejection and that high donor T-cell chimaerism was beneficial
in mediating GVT effects (Antin et al, 2001; McSweeney et al, 2001; Maris
et al, 2003; Niederwieser et al, 2003). The level of donor T-cell engraftment
(chimaerism) is currently being used as a surrogate marker for donor engraftment
after non-myeloablative HCT (Childs et al, 1999; Antin et al, 2001; McSweeney
et al, 2001).
This study confirms the substantial variation in PBSC cellular subset
composition as reported in previous studies of conventional myeloablative
allogeneic HCT recipients (Dreger et al, 1994; Ottinger et al, 1996). Our
analysis showed positive correlations between almost all cellular subtypes
within the PBSC product.
Results from this study are the first published indication in the truly
non-myeloablative setting that infused quantities of some cellular subsets
of PBSC products from HLA-matched siblings are associated with important
post-HCT outcomes of engraftment (T-cell chimaerism) and survival. The
cellular components that were associated with higher donor T-cell chimaerism
on day +28 were TNC and CD56+ cell numbers. Given the observation that
TNC numbers were highly correlated with CD3+ cell numbers in this study,
the relationship of TNC on donor T-cell chimaerism possibly reflected the
known role of T cells in establishing donor engraftment after myeloablative
and non-myeloablative HCT (Champlin, 1993; Drobyski, 2000; Kreiter et al,
2001). NK and NKT cells analysed separately were marginally associated
with T-cell chimaerism; however, the association was stronger when the
two values were combined. CD56 has been used as a surrogate marker to describe
NK cells, and it was known that NK-cell alloreactivity could influence
engraftment and relapse rates after HLA-mismatched myeloablative HCT (Bornhauser
et al, 1999; Ruggeri et al, 1999, 2001). This alloreactivity was thought
to be the result of the missing expression of HLA-class I epitopes on haematopoietic
cells (Ciccone et al, 1992). Whether donor NK cells can exert anti-host
activity after HLA-identical related donor HCT is presently unknown (Dupont
& Hsu, 2004). Interestingly, a recent report showed that patients who
rejected their unrelated grafts after a non-myeloablative conditioning
regimen had significantly lower donor NK-cell chimaerism compared with
patients who did not experience rejection (Bornhauser et al, 2001). However,
it was unclear if, and to what level, these patients were HLA-matched in
this report, and no data were given about the actual number of donor cells
transplanted.
We suspected that certain cellular subsets in PBSC grafts would be associated
with better progression-free and overall survival after non-myeloablative
HCT, as this approach relies mainly on graft anti-tumour responses mediated
by donor cells (Barrett & Malkovska, 1996; Appelbaum, 2001). In fact,
only B cells and CD34+ cells were associated with improved outcomes. Specifically,
higher doses of B cells appeared to be associated with a greater occurrence
of chronic GVHD, better progression-free survival, and improved overall
survival, while the effect of higher numbers of CD34+ progenitor cells
was associated only with better overall survival. The finding that higher
B-cell numbers were associated with an increase in chronic GVHD in the
current study was unexpected, two previous reports had shown that high
numbers of CD34+ cells were associated with an increased risk of chronic
GVHD after both myeloablative and reduced-intensity-conditioning HCT (Zaucha
et al, 2001; Perez-Simon et al, 2003). The association of B cells with
chronic GVHD is also the probable explanation for the positive effect of
B cells on progression-free and overall survival found in this study, possibly
through GVT effects. In addition, humoral responses of B cells against
malignant host cells, which have been described for potential CML-associated
antigens (Ling et al, 1998; Wu et al, 2000), might have been responsible
for the anti-tumour responses. However, it seems most likely that the donor
CD20+ cells could have functioned as antigen-presenting cells (Chesnut
& Grey, 1986; Pernis & Weber, 1989), thereby facilitating the donor
T cells to exert more GVT and GVHD effects.
Higher numbers of CD14+ cells (monocytes) were associated with worse
overall survival in our analysis. As CD14+ cells in PBSC might decrease
allogeneic T-cell responses (Mielcarek et al, 1997), one might speculate
that GVT effects may have been diminished in patients who received a higher
CD14+ cell dose in the PBSC graft.
As expected, patients categorized before HCT as having aggressive malignant
disease had a higher risk for disease relapse/progression and worse progression-free
and overall survival. These results confirmed the prognostic value of this
clinical categorization, similar to the high dose conventional HCT setting;
patients classified as having aggressive diseases had worse outcomes after
non-myeloablative conditioning as well.
Another finding consistent with previous studies was that patients who
had received 2 Gy TBI only as conditioning showed lower donor T-cell chimaerism
on day 28 compared with patients who had received additional fludarabine
or a combination of autologous and allogeneic transplantation (McSweeney
et al, 2001). As fludarabine is known to be immunosuppressive and to enhance
the effect of radiation (Gregoire et al, 1999; Van Den Neste et al, 2001),
it is likely that additional suppression of host immune-competent cells
caused by fludarabine enabled the achievement of more rapid donor T-cell
chimaerism. Our data were consistent with previous studies showing that
donor T-cell chimaerism can be used as a surrogate marker for engraftment
(Childs et al, 1999; Antin et al, 2001; McSweeney et al, 2001; Niederwieser
et al, 2003), although there were too few rejections in this set to confirm
this hypothesis.
In summary, we have shown that the doses of CD34+ cells, B cells and
monocytes in the HLA-matched related PBSC graft influenced outcomes after
non-myeloablative HCT and confirmed that variations in conditioning regimens,
disease status, and age of donors and recipients were important. Evaluations
in patients receiving PBSC from alternative donors (e.g. HLA-matched unrelated
or HLA-mismatched donor recipient pairs) are needed to support and further
exploit these findings. Furthermore, prospective clinical studies with
larger numbers of patients will be required. If these results are confirmed,
then clinical studies evaluating graft engineering for selective cellular
enrichment or depletion may be important in improving clinical outcomes
after non-myeloablative conditioning for allogeneic HCT.
This process mimics enhancement of the physiological release of stem
cells and progenitors from the bone marrow (BM) reservoir in response to
stress signals during injury and inflammation. Currently, mobilized cells
are the preferable and major source of stem and progenitor cells harvested
for autologous and allogeneic transplantations because of the higher yield
of these cells, leading to faster engraftment and decreased procedural
risks compared with harvested BM cells. The emerging picture of stem cell
mobilization involves interfering with the physiological interplay between
mesenchymal stromal and hematopoietic cells regulating both bone and BM
remodeling processes, which also mediate stem/progenitor cell proliferation
and migration. The mobilization process is initiated by stress-induced
activation of neutrophils and osteoclasts by chemotherapy and repeated
stimulation with cytokines such as G-CSF, resulting in shedding and release
of membrane-bound SCF, proliferation of progenitor cells, as well as activation
and/or degradation of adhesion molecules such as VLA-4 and P/E selectins.
The dynamic secretion and inactivation of the chemokines SDF-1/CXCL12 and
IL-8/CXCL8, and multiple cycles of inactivation and degradation of BM components
by proteolytic enzymes, such as elastase, cathepsin G, proteinase 3, CD26,
and various MMPs, are implicated as major players in progenitor mobilization.
These mechanisms will be reviewed in this section. The road to stem cell
mobilization began in the 1960s, with publication of a few reports documenting
the presence of hematopoietic stem cells in the peripheral blood of mice,
dogs, and monkeys, followed by reports revealing low levels of progenitors
in the human circulation during steady-state homeostasis. However, steady-state
progenitors in the circulation of mice were shown to be inferior to BM
as a source of repopulating stem cells. More important, although sporadic
clinical transplantations documented successful hematopoietic recovery,
in most cases graft failure was detected in autologous, syngeneic, and
fully matched related allogeneic transplantations, using steady-state peripheral
blood cells. Moreover, the first successful human blood leukocyte transplantations
were not better than BM as a source of repopulating stem cells (reviewed
in Korbling and Fliender (Korbling M, Fliender TM. History of blood stem
cell transplants. Blood stem cell transplants. In: Gale RP, Juttner CA,
Henon P eds. Peripheral blood stem cell autographts. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 1994:9) and To et alref).
While the levels of human progenitors in the circulation during steady-state
homeostasis are low, they are significantly elevated in patients with myeloproliferative
disordersref.
Similarly, a transient increase in circulating progenitors was documented
in dogs treated with dextran sulfate and humans treated with endotoxin
or other stress-inducing mobilization agents. These encouraging results
were followed by preliminary reports in the late 1970s documenting increased
levels of progenitors in the circulation of patients after chemotherapy
treatment with cyclophosphamide and other drugs. Technical improvements
including in vitro colony assays and the availability of large-scale
harvesting of human progenitors by continuous-flow leukopheresis enabled
closer examination of chemotherapy-/druginduced mobilization in treated
patientsref
(Korbling M, Fliender TM. History of blood stem cell transplants. Blood
stem cell transplants. In: Gale RP, Juttner CA, Henon P eds. Peripheral
blood stem cell autographts. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994:9).
In the early 1980s, To and colleagues reported high levels of progenitors
in the circulation of leukemia patients in early remissionref.
Clinical studies by this group were the first to document the beneficial
faster repopulation in patients transplanted with autologous mobilized
peripheral blood (PBL). Initially, the mobilization protocols were based
on chemotherapy alone. However, after the discovery of human G-CSF by Welte
et alref,
mobilization protocols began to include G-CSF, which today is the standard
mobilizing agentref.
During late embryonic development, both human and murine stem cells migrate
via the blood circulation from the fetal liver to the BM and repopulate
this tissue with high levels of immature and maturing cells. These in turn
are released into the circulation, while a small pool of undifferentiated
stem and progenitor cells within the BM is maintained throughout life.
Prior to their localization in the murine fetal liver, hematopoietic stem
cells can be isolated from the aorta-gonad-mesonephros (AGM) region and
the yolk sac even before completion of blood circulation developmentref.
However, some of these stem cells are not definitive, since they cannot
rescue and repopulate lethally irradiated recipients because of their inability
to migrate in the host circulation and home to and repopulate the BM. These
predefinitive stem cells isolated from the murine yolk sac can still engraft
the liver of newborn mice preconditioned as fetuses with chemotherapy if
the predefinitive stem cells are directly injected into this organref.
Furthermore, an additional maturation step provided to predefinitive progenitors
isolated from the AGM region, in the form of in vitro incubation on stromal
cells and stimulation with cytokines, shifts these cells into definitive
stem cells with functional migration, homing, and repopulation potentialref.
Murine embryos that lack the chemokine SDF-1 or its receptor CXCR4 have
multiple lethal defects, including impaired seeding of the fetal BMref.
The essential roles of SDF-1/CXCR4 interactions has been shown in a functional,
preclinical model for human stem cells using non-obese diabetes severe
combined immune deficient (NOD/SCID) mice as recipients. Homing and repopulation
in both primary and serially transplanted mice with human CD34 stem cells
was dependent on CXCR4 signalingref1,
ref2,
which is dynamically expressed by human progenitorsref.
Moreover, SDF-1-mediated migration of human CD34 cells in vitro correlated
with their in vivo repopulation potential in transplanted patientsref.
In conclusion, stem cell motility (migration, homing, and release) is essential
for BM repopulation and for the development of the hematopoietic system.
The role of circulating stem cells in steady-state homeostasis is currently
unknown. While some progenitors are needed for seeding of the thymus, which
requires migration of lymphocyte precursors from the BM, this process is
markedly reduced in adult liferef.
Stem cells migrate also to nonhematopoietic organs such as the liver, especially
during liver injury/inflammation, creating an alarm situation and transmitting
stress signals that mobilize and recruit stem cells as part of organ repairref.
Ramshaw et al suggest that circulating stem cells can reengraft the BM,
documenting successful engraftment of unconditioned murine recipients transplanted
with high doses of BM cellsref.
In support of this approach, Wright et al elegantly demonstrated rapid
clearance of intravenous transplanted mouse stem cells from the murine
circulation within a few minutes. By using genetically marked parabiotic
mice with a shared circulation, they showed that the low levels of circulating
stem cells can durably reengraft the BM, suggesting continuous release
and reengraftment of the BM as sequential events taking part in physiological
processesref.
In parallel, Abkowitz et al, using the same parabiotic model, revealed
only low levels of reengrafted stem cells with secondary recipient repopulation
potential (1–2.5%) in the partner BM as opposed to high levels of progenitors
in the spleen. These investigators suggest the release of stem cells into
the circulation functions also as an apoptotic pathway for the BM to regulate
excess amounts of progenitors because of limited numbers of stem cell nichesref.
Of interest, these investigators also applied G-CSF- and SCF-induced mobilization
to the parabiotic mice pairs, documenting a dramatic 4- to 10-fold increase
(from 1–2.5% to 10.1%) in the levels of reengrafted stem cells with secondary
repopulation potential in the partner BM. These results demonstrate that
inducing the release of stem cells in response to stress signals also increases
their homing back and reengraftment of the stimulated/stressed BM, confirming
the repopulation potential of mobilized progenitors harvested for clinical
protocols. These results also support the hypothesis that tissue repair
of damaged BM can be supported by intensified homing and reengraftment
of circulating hematopoietic stem cells, in response to stress signals,
which is similar to migration of mature leukocytes to sites of inflammation
as part of the immune system host defense. The concept of BM niches occupied
by stationary, quiescent stem cells may be an oversimplification of a more
dynamic situation. Higher proliferative and migratory turnover of definitive,
repopulating stem cells involves their release into the circulation, migration,
homing, and reengraftment of the BM as part of their physiological development.
Bradford et al revealed that even the most primitive murine stem cells
in the BM must cycle at least once every 30 daysref.
Proliferation and release of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells require
dynamic cycles of BM destruction/restructuring, which seem to be linked
to bone remodeling by osteoclast/osteoblast interactions. Moreover, both
processes are likely to be orchestrated by the same factors. For example,
continuous G-CSF treatment to prevent neutropenia has also been shown to
induce osteoporosis in some juvenile patients with severe congenital neutropeniaref
and in transgenic mice that overexpress this cytokineref.
More important, there is a dramatic increase in the number of murine osteoclasts
in response to repetitive G-CSF stimulation, leading to osteoclast-mediated
bone resorption during stem cell mobilization and calcium release, which
can induce detachment of hematopoietic progenitors from fibronectin
in vitroref.
Unexpectedly, treatment of mice with pamidronate, an inhibitor of osteoclast-mediated
bone resorption, together with G-CSF increased the levels of mobilized
progenitors in the murine circulationref.
Osteoclasts secrete high levels of IL-8, a mobilization-inducing chemokineref1,
ref2.
Another chemokine, SDF-1, which also participates in G-CSF–mediated mobilization,
induces osteoclasts to secrete the metalloproteinase MMP-9ref.
This enzyme is involved in stem cell mobilization by shedding the membrane-bound
cytokine SCF within the BM and releasing this cytokine into the circulationref.
MMP-9 also induces migration of osteoclasts to the cortical bone, adjacent
to the SDF-1 and stem cell–rich endosteum region, to form resorption pitsref1,
ref2.
These results suggest that the role of osteoclasts in mobilization could
be related to the rapid increase in their numbers and to the secretion
of chemokines and proteolytic enzymes. Activation and secretion of proteolytic
enzymes lead to cleavage and degradation of the BM extracellular matrix,
adhesion molecules, cytokines, and chemokines and therefore facilitate
transendothelial migration and stem cell release from the BM.7 These processes
mediate both peripheral bone and medullar BM remodeling as well as stem
cell proliferation and release by inactivating the BM microenvironment.
Subsequently, stem cells migrate via the circulation, home back to the
BM, and repopulate the damaged/destructured sites in this organ as part
of tissue repair and the continuous replenishment of the blood with new
immature and maturing hematopoietic cells of all lineages, while maintaining
a small pool of undifferentiated stem and progenitor cells within their
renewed BM niches. In support of this hypothesis, by applying complementary
DNA array technology, 2 recent studies revealed high expression of the
proteolytic enzyme proteinase 3 and low expression of a proteinase 3 inhibitor
in isolated human BM CD34 cells compared with enriched mobilized CD34 cells
isolated from G-CSF-treated healthy donorsref1,
ref2.
These results suggest that proteinase 3, with its ability to cleave connective
tissue in the BM, is needed for maintaining a niche for hematopoietic stem
and progenitor cells. Recent findings document that proteinase 3 also cleaves
the cell cycle checkpoint p21, inducing cells to enter the cell cycleref.
This could explain the higher levels of cycling BM CD34 cells compared
with the more quiescent mobilized PBL CD34 cellsref1,
ref2.
Immature mesenchymal bone-forming osteoblasts lining the stem cell–rich
endosteum region secrete high levels of SDF-1ref.
In response to stimulation with this ligand, hematopoietic stem cell–derived
osteoclasts secrete MMP-9ref1,
ref2.
Thus, peripheral periosteal bone and medullar BM destruction and remodeling
are sequential events mediated by the same factors, i.e. MMP-9, G-CSF,
SCF, IL-8, and SDF-1, which regulate both new bone formation and stem cell
self-renewal, migration, and development. Applying single or multiple stress
signals interferes with steady-state homeostasis, creating an alarm situation
leading to increased release of immature and maturing hematopoietic cells
from the BM into the blood circulation, which occurs naturally during inflammation
and injury. For example, increased levels of G-CSF and other cytokines
secreted by long-distance runners during marathons cause blood leukocytosis,
in particular higher levels of CD34/CD38+ committed progenitor
cells, but not more primitive CD38- stem cells compared with
control individuals, reflecting adaptation of BM activity to stress induced
by extensive exerciseref.
Increased cell release from the BM reservoir is part of the immune system
host defense during inflammation as a result of infection- or injury-mediated
release of stress signals. This release is induced clinically or in animal
models by a wide range of molecules and/or treatments: DNA damaging, single
chemotherapeutic drugs such as cyclophosphamide
,
or combined chemotherapy regimens such as iphosphamide,
carboplatin and etoposide (ICE)
and etoposide, methylprednisolone,
ara-c and cisplatin (ESHAP)
;
cytokines such as G-CSF, GM-CSF, SCF, and flt-3 ligand; and chemokines
such as IL-8, Mip-1, Groß, and SDF-1ref.
These molecules differ in their mode of administration, the time frame
needed to achieve mobilization, the type of cells mobilized, and the efficiency.
G-CSF, the most commonly used mobilization agent, is usually administered
daily at a dose of 5–10 µg/kg for 5–10 days, alone or after chemotherapyref.
However, a substantial number of patients, especially patients having extensive
chemotherapy that leads to BM aplasia, older patients, and a minority of
healthy individuals, are poor mobilizersref.
For example, increasing age and longer intensive chemotherapy treatment
in old multiple myeloma patients inversely correlate with successful mobilizationref.
These patients are usually treated with higher doses of G-CSF, GM-CSF followed
by G-CSF, or a combination of G-CSF and SCF. Recently, it was reported
that some chronic
myeloid leukemia (CML)
patients treated with high doses of imatinib (Glivec, STI 571) suffer hematological
toxicity and can develop drug-induced neutropeniaref.
In addition, some treated patients failed to mobilize well, requiring discontinuation
of the drug during the mobilization process and the addition of SCF to
G-CSF, to successfully overcome the poor mobilizationref.
However, while SCF stimulation increases the levels of mobilized CD34+
progenitors, this treatment also has side effects such as allergic reaction
due to activation of mast cells. These studies stress the need to identify
and characterize the mechanisms of stem cell mobilization in order to develop
better strategies for poor mobilizers. Chemotherapy followed by repetitive
G-CSF–induced mobilization is a multistep process. Anchorage of stem and
progenitor cells to the BM microenvironment by activation of adhesion interactions,
which are facilitated by membrane-bound SCF or SDF-1, needs to be disruptedref.
Papayannopoulou elegantly demonstrated that the integrin VLA-4 plays a
critical role in stem cell mobilization since anti-VLA-4 antibodies prevent
adhesion molecules expressed on the surface of hematopoietic progenitors
from binding their ligand VCAM-1 expressed by stromal cells. This induces
rapid mobilization of primate and murine stem cells, which also involves
signaling via the c-kit receptor. Moreover, as a result of inactivation
during the mobilization process, mobilized CD34+ cells have
lower levels of VLA-4 and c-kit expression compared with BM progenitorsref1,
ref2.
In addition, sulfated polysaccharides such as Fucoidan lead to rapid mobilization
of progenitorsref
since they compete for adhesion interactions with selectins and for SDF-1
binding to the BM endothelium via its nonsignaling C-terminus, inducing
inactivation of selectin interactions as well as release of SDF-1 into
the circulation. Levesque et al revealed increased release of elastase
and cathepsin G within murine BM during Cy- and G-CSF–induced mobilization;
peak levels were reached during stem cell egressref.
These enzymes cleaved VCAM-1 expressed by stromal cells, preventing adhesion
of progenitors via VLA-4 as part of the mobilization process. In addition
to their distinctive adhesive properties, mobilized CD34 progenitors differ
from their BM counterparts in several ways. Besides reduced VLA-4, c-kit,
and CXCR4 expression, a significantly higher percentage of mobilized progenitors
are noncycling quiescent cellsref1,
ref2.
Prior to mobilization, hematopoietic progenitors proliferate within the
BM, and this feature could involve proteinase 3–mediated cleavage of p21
in response to neutrophil stimulationref.
Mobilized progenitors have higher levels of the proapoptotic genes caspase
3, 4, and 8 and reduction in inhibitors of apoptosis such as antiproteinase
2, compared with human BM CD34 cellsref,
supporting the hypothesis of Abkowitz et al that release into the circulation
may also serve as an apoptotic pathway for stem cellsref.
Enhanced repopulation documented with mobilized progenitors is due to significantly
higher cell doses, in particular committed progenitors, which lead to faster
neutrophil and platelet recoveryref.
However, better leukemia-free survival and overall survival were recently
documented in acute
myeloid leukemia (AML)
patients transplanted with increased cell doses of matched BM cells compared
with lower doses of BM cells and more important, also compared with high
cell doses of matched mobilized PBL, suggesting BM as a superior source
of stem cells for HLA-identical allogeneic transplantationsref.
New protocols aimed at increasing the levels of long-term repopulating
stem cells as the major source while maintaining short-term repopulating
cells need to be developed. Mobilized human CD34 progenitors express reduced
levels of the SDF-1 receptor CXCR4, which correlates with improved mobilizationref1,
ref2,
suggesting involvement of SDF-1/CXCR4 interactions in the mobilization
process. Overexpression of SDF-1 in the murine circulation leads to stem
cell mobilizationref.
In functional preclinical animal models for human stem cells such as preimmune
sheep and immune-deficient NOD/SCID mice, mobilized CD34+ cells
are inferior in their repopulating potential compared with similar cell
doses of CD34 cells obtained from human BM. This is most probably due to
their reduced levels of surface CXCR4, which is needed for SDF-1–mediated
directional homing and repopulation in transplanted mice and increased
levels of short-term repopulating cellsref.
These results should be interpreted with caution, since short-term stimulation
with human SCF upregulated surface CXCR4 expression on human CD34+
cells and murine SCF is much less potent in stimulating human progenitorsref1,
ref2.
In addition, other factors such as complement C3a improve SDF-1–mediated
directional migration of human progenitors and the in vivo homing of murine
progenitors. However, some of these factors can be species-specific or
absent in immune-deficient miceref.
Of interest, priming of mobilized human progenitors by several inflammatory
molecules improves their chemotactic responses to SDF-1 (Wysoczynski M,
Reca R, Kucia M, et al. Mobilized peripheral blood stem/progenitor cells
are primed by several inflammatory molecules for their chemotactic responses
to sdf-1: a molecular explanation as to why mobilized peripheral blood
cells engraft faster than bone marrow cells after transplantation. Paris,
France -July 5–8, 2003; 32nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the International
Society for Experimental Hematology (ISEH). abst 277. 2003). We have demonstrated
increased levels of SDF-1 production in the murine BM in response to DNA-damaging
chemotherapy drugs, including Cy and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), most probably
to prevent cell death since this chemokine is also a survival factor for
stem cellsref1,
ref2,
ref3.
Rafii and Hattori et al demonstrated that the increased levels of SDF-1
in response to stress-mediated 5-FU mobilization in mice induce release
of MMP-9, which cleaves and releases membrane-bound SCF, leading quiescent
stem cells to proliferate in the BM prior to their mobilization into the
circulationref.
SDF-1 mediates secretion of MMP-2 and MMP-9 from human CD34+
cellsref,
and these proteolytic enzymes inactivate SDF-1 by cleaving a few amino
acids in the N terminusref.
We demonstrated that each injection of G-CSF stimulates mesenchymal cells
such as immature osteoblasts to secrete SDF-1, leading to a transient increase
in SDF-1 levels within the BM. This oscillating increase is followed by
a profound decrease due to inactivation by proteolytic enzymes, mostly
by neutrophil elastase, with the lowest levels of this ligand released
during cell mobilizationref.
Levesque et al reported that in addition to inactivation of BM SDF-1 by
elastase and cathepsin G, these proteolytic enzymes can also cleave part
of the CXCR4 receptor N terminus in the BMref,
partially inactivating SDF-1 signaling and directional migration. Of interest,
neutrophils secrete the proteolytic enzymes elastase, cathepsin G, and
proteinase 3 in response to G-CSF, and neutrophil elastase also inactivates
G-CSFref,
which is essential for regulating release of neutrophils from the BM. However,
expression of G-CSF receptors by neutrophils is not required because of
an indirect mechanism that involves proteolytic reduction of SDF-1 within
the murine BMref.
Of interest, the central role of elastase in regulating release of BM leukocytes
is suggested by inherited genetic mutations in the elastase gene, leading
to 2 forms of neutropenia in juvenile patients (severe congenital neutropenia,
or Kostmann disease, and cyclic neutropenia) that require continuous treatment
with G-CSFref.
CD26, another proteolytic enzyme that inactivates SDF-1, is expressed by
human CD34 progenitors and is involved in G-CSF–induced mobilization in
miceref.
A role for CXCR4 signaling in cell egress from the BM to the circulation
emerges from several studies. In parallel to gradual reduction of BM SDF-1
during G-SCF administration, CXCR4 expression is elevated within the human
and murine BM, reaching peak levels at the time of mobilizationref.
While some CXCR4 inhibitors also lead to release of human progenitorsref,
and treatment with pertussis toxin, which blocks Gi-mediated signaling
in 7 transmembrane G coupled receptors such as CXCR4, induced mobilization
in miceref,
SDF-1/CXCR4 interactions are also needed for cell egress. Treatment of
mice with G-CSF and neutralizing anti-CXCR4, anti-SDF-1 Ab, or inhibitors
of CD26 reduced the mobilization levelsref1,
ref2.
Finally, warts, hypogammaglobulinemia, immunodeficiency and myelokathexis
(WHIM) syndrome, a rare inherited immunodeficiency disease associated with
mutations in CXCR4, is characterized by neutropenia and B-cell lymphopenia.
In one case, an affected individual was born with cardiac malformation,
resembling the murine model in which knocking out CXCR4 or SDF-1 results
in a lethal phenotype associated with lack of BM seeding, B-cell development,
and cardiac septum formationref.
Thus, SDF-1/CXCR4 interactions may have a role in the regulation of the
routine and active egress of progenitor and maturing cells from the BM
into the circulation. Taken together, these results decipher key mechanistic
insights into stress-induced mobilization that mimic and amplify naturally
occurring recruitment of progenitors during alarm situations. We suggest
the BM as a reservoir for immature and maturing hematopoietic cells to
be released into the circulation upon stress signals, to migrate to injured
sites, and to contribute to host defense and tissue repair. The steady-state
balance in the BM is disrupted, leading to transient increased production
of SDF-1, and proliferation and activation of neutrophils and osteoclasts.
Release of proteolytic enzymes is followed by shedding of membrane-bound
SCF, proliferation of hematopoietic progenitors, increasing surface CXCR4
expression and inactivation of SDF-1, G-CSF, the BM adhesion machinery,
and extra cellular matrix (ECM). These events are intensified in each cycle
of stimulation by G-CSF, eventually leading to release of progenitors into
the circulation. A better understanding of the process by which progenitors
egress from the BM will eventually lead to the development of improved
mobilization protocols, in particular for patients who are poor mobilizers.
-
mobilizing the older patient with multiple
myeloma

-
individually optimized collection of HPCs
-
enumeration of HPCs
Variables having an impact on the ability to collect hematopoietic
progenitor cells (HPCs) may be donor related or procedure related. Donor-related
variables include age, previous chemotherapy, mobilization regimen, and
platelet count at the time of mobilization. Procedure-related variables
include central access devices as well as variables inherent to the different
cell separation devices used. Nonetheless, at present, the basis for optimizing
HPC collection is the ability to determine when to start collection, based
on the ability to enumerate CD34+ cells in the peripheral blood
of a donor/patient on a daily basis. It has been demonstrated repeatedly
that the best currently available predictor of an adequate collection is
the number of CD34+ cell/µL in the blood on the morning
of collection, both for good mobilizers and for poor mobilizersref1,
ref2,
ref3,
ref4,
ref5.
A number of authors have recommended starting collection when a particular
number of CD34+ cells/µL is present (usually a number
between 8 and 20) in order to increase the likelihood of collecting at
least 2–4 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg in a single apheresis,
i.e., an acceptable number of HPCs for either one or two autologous transplants
or a single allogeneic transplant (Weaver C, Birch R, Schwartzberg L, et
al. CD34+ content of peripheral blood progenitor cells is the single most
powerful predictor of recovery kinetics in patients receiving myeloablative
high-dose chemotherapy and PBPC infusion. Blood. 1994;84:1388a)ref.
In the past it was important that each center determine a number of its
own as the starting point for apheresis, given the historic difficulty
in comparing flow cytometry results from center to centerref.
At present, however, there are 2 commercially available single platform
tests available for measuring CD34+ cells in blood (ProCount
from Becton-Dickinson, Mt View, CA, and StemKit from Beckman-Coulter, Fullerton,
CA), so that any center using the same technology should have a reasonable
chance of success using the same numbers. More importantly, it is possible
to use the number of CD34+ cells/µL obtained using single
platform technology in a predictive formula which allows the clinician
to know when to start apheresis in order to optimize collection and how
many liters of blood need to be processed in order to collect a given number
of CD34+ cells (O’Connell B, Ng Y, Rapoport A, Fassas A, Tricot
G, Cottler-Fox M. Maximizing collection of human peripheral blood progenitor
cells while minimizing the number of aphereses. Blood. 1999;94:4749a) using
the formula in Figure 3. While results of collection using this formula
have only been reported for the COBE Spectra cell separators, it seems
likely that it would work with any continuous flow apheresis device if
the appropriate value for machine collection efficiency is used.
Predictive formula that allows the clinician
to know when to start apheresis in order to optimize collection and how
many liters of blood need to be processed in order to collect a given number
of CD34+ cells : # of L of blood processed = # CD34+
cells desired / [CD34+ cells/ml blood x machine collection efficiency)/patient
weight in kg]
Sadly, despite the consensus that daily CD34+ cell numbers
in the blood are the best currently available predictor for achieving an
acceptable HPC collection,8 the practice has not been universally adopted
because it is both time consuming and relatively expensive. Alternatives
that have been reported to be useful include measuring the number of CD34+
cells in the blood the day before starting collection, with or without
the total white cell count, or change in white cell count from the day
before apheresis to the day of apheresisref,
and the rapidity of rise in white cell count and platelet count. More recently,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of an HPC window
on an automated cell counter (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) and this number may
be used to predict when to start apheresisref.
The HPC number measured by the Sysmex does not correlate well with CD34+
cell number in the blood (nor does CD133, an antigen expressed by the more
primitive CD34+ cellsref,
but since it is now recognized that not all HPCs express measurable CD34ref
it has been presumed that the HPCs measured by the Sysmex include some
that are CD34-. Thus, the HPCs measured by Sysmex are available
rapidly and less expensively, and may serve as a guide for starting apheresis,
but they are difficult to use in the above predictive formula.
HPCs expressing high levels of the enzyme aldehyde
dehydrogenase (ALDH)
are believed to be pluripotent and generally express CD34 on their surfaceref.
A commercial assay has now been developed for this intracellular enzyme
(Aldecount, Stemco Biomedical, Durham, NC). As this assay detects both
CD34+ and CD34- cells, and appears to differentiate
viable from non-viable cells (Balber A, Gentry C, Pritchard C, Baucom C,
Deibert E, Smith C. ABC-mediated efflux of ALDH reaction product: implications
for enumeratioin and isolation of blood progenitor cells. Biol Blood Marrow
Transplant. 2003;9:231a), its use may eventually lead to a major change
in how HPCs are enumerated in transplant grafts.
Timing of apheresis : there is a fall
in circulating leukocytes immediately after G-CSF has been given, with
the peak of CD34+ cell mobilization approximately 3–6 hours
after each dose is given subcutaneously, paralleling its half-liferef1,
ref2,
ref3.
To optimize collection, it seems reasonable therefore, to wait at least
1 hour after giving the injection, trying to time the duration of the collection
for the period which includes the rise in leukocytes and as much of the
peak as possible. For example, at least one center routinely waits for
2 hours after the injection, since their average collection lasts about
2–3 hoursref.
It is possible that the apparent ability of large volume leukapheresis
lasting 4–5 hours to "recruit" CD34+ cells into the blood, reported
by several groups but not othersref1,
ref2,
in fact simply reflects the timing of the apheresis collection relative
to the dose of G-CSF. With the arrival of pegylated filgrastim (Neulasta,
Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA) it is possible that the relationship of collection
yields relative to the time of dosage will cease to be a factor in collection.
Predicting who will mobilize poorly :
the effect of age has been shown to be a continuous, incremental variable
in the myeloma population, with no threshold past which there is an accelerated
decline in mobilization of CD34+ cellsref.
That is, the older the patient, the fewer stem cells are likely to be collected,
but there is no fixed age past which it is impossible to collect HPCs.
Over and above age, however, 2 other variables are statistically significant:
number of months of previous chemotherapy and platelet count at the time
of mobilizationref.
In 85% of myeloma patients over age 70 who had < 12 months of therapy
and a platelet count > 200 x 109/L, it was possible to obtain
4 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg in a single apheresis using
individually optimized collection conditions after combined chemotherapy
and growth factors. Those patient over 70 years of age with > 12 months
of prior therapy and platelets < 200 x 109/L, however, were
poor mobilizers.
Choosing a mobilization regimen : mobilization
with chemotherapy and growth factors has been shown in a number of settings
to be significantly more effective than growth factors alone. Nonetheless,
it is often the case that the toxicity of chemotherapy makes this combination
less attractive in the fragile older patient. It is therefore important
to know that in the subgroup of myeloma patients over the age of 70 who
were predicted to be poor mobilizers (> 12 months prior therapy and platelets
< 200 x 109/L), as many stem cells were collected with growth
factors alone as with chemotherapy and growth factors together. Thus, for
this group of patients it seems worthwhile trying to mobilize with growth
factors alone in order to avoid toxicity, assuming the disease itself does
not require chemotherapy at the time of attempted mobilization.
-
current standard agents :
-
filgrastim
has become the standard against which all other mobilization agents are
measured. This is because it has been shown to both mobilize more CD34+
cells and have less toxicity than any other single agent against which
it has been tested to date. It is not completely without toxicity, however,
given that there have been deaths attributed to thrombosis (acute myocardial
infarction and stroke) in sibling donorsref,
possibly related to receptors on platelets for G-CSFref.
Also, a recent study of serial ultrasounds in donors receiving G-CSF prompted
by 4 reports of splenic rupture related to G-CSF demonstrated universal
enlargement of the spleen during mobilization, with regression of size
after discontinuing the growth factorref1,
ref2.
Other effects of G-CSF which are shared with GM-CSF include pain, nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea, insomnia, chills, fevers, and nightsweatsref1,
ref2
-
sargramostim
as a single agent is used less often today for mobilization than G-CSF,
because it mobilizes somewhat less well than G-CSFref
and because of a relatively higher incidence of both mild and severe side
effectsref.
However, the fact that it can be more cost effective, and that there are
reports of improved immune reconstitution with GM-CSF relative to G-CSFref1,
ref2,
ref3,
ref4,
has caused some clinicians to reconsider its use. Further, for the patient,
or normal donor who has failed to mobilize adequately on G-CSF alone, the
combination of GM-CSF with or followed by G-CSF has been shown to be efficaciousref1,
ref2,
ref3.
(Law P, Young D, Peterson S, Lane T, Ho A. Mobilization and collection
of peripheral blood progenitor cells from normal subjects treated sequentially
with GM-CSF and G-CSF. Blood. 1996;88:1578a)
-
erythropoietin
,
now commonly used among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy to maintain
hemoglobin in the near normal range, also has some ability to mobilize
CD34+ cellsref.
In the hard to mobilize patient, its use may therefore be doubly beneficial.
-
stem cell factor (SCF) has been shown to be an excellent mobilizing agent,
particularly when used in combination with G-CSFref.
Unfortunately, the high incidence of allergic reactions to this agent and
the need for observation after it is given have made it difficult to move
into standard clinical practice. It is not currently available commercially
in the US.
-
pegfilgrastim
and darbopoietin
are now available and are in clinical trials as mobilizing agents. They
have the benefit of very long half-lives and so add an important measure
of patient convenience and the probability that timing of collection may
be more flexible without sacrificing optimal collections.
-
a new factor (AMD3100, AnorMed, Vancouver, Canada), which is a reversible
inhibitor of the binding of stromal derived factor (SDF-1a)
to its cognate receptor CXCR4
,
is currently in clinical trials as a mobilizing agent. It is the first
agent to be tried for mobilization based on a rational understanding of
its mechanism of action relative to HPC-stromal cell interactions. While
it mobilizes CD34+ cells adequately on its own, it significantly
improves the mobilization capacity of G-CSF when used in combination with
G-CSF in mice. Clinical trials in humans with various diseases are in progress,
including myeloma.
Remobilization : for the patient who fails
to mobilize the necessary number of cells for transplant on the first attempt,
but for whom it is clear that transplant is the best option, two decisions
need to be made simultaneously: when to remobilize, and with what? When
to remobilize is still a subject of debate, and depends to some extent
on whether the failed mobilization was with chemotherapy plus growth factor
or growth factor alone. Although at least one set of authors recommend
immediate remobilization with growth factors for a patient who has not
mobilized adequately after chemotherapy plus growth factor (Miclea J, Makki
J, Lefrere F, et al. Successful PBPC harvesting with G-CSF alone a short
time after previous mobilizataion failure by both chemotherapy and hematopoietic
growth factors. Blood. 1999;94:1465a), others feel that at least 2–3 weeks
off growth factor prior to remobilization offers the best chance of success.40–42
If adequate cells are given for an autologous transplant, it is even possible
to collect enough for a second transplant during the period of white blood
cell recovery following the first transplant (Schenkein D, O’Connor C,
Morelli J, et al. A randomized trial of two different priming methods for
stem cell mobilization in patients with relapsed Hodgkin’s disease and
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Blood. 1999;94:1460a). It is also possible to collect
HPCs at least 1 year after a prior transplant: of 38 myeloma patients who
attempted such a collection, 36 achieved an adequate number of cells for
transplant (Cottler-Fox et al, in preparation). What to use for a repeat
mobilization attempt for a specific patient and disease may be a complex
decision. However, some general guidelines may be found in the literature.
First, mobilization with chemotherapy plus growth factor will generally
yield more CD34+ cells than growth factor alone (for the single
exception see #2 in the Algorithm for Mobilizing Myeloma Patients below)ref1,
ref2.
Second, chemotherapy plus G-CSF and SCF is more effective than chemotherapy
+ G-CSF aloneref.
Further, chemotherapy with either sequential or concurrent GM-CSF plus
G-CSF may be more effective than G-CSF aloneref,
as erythropoietin may improve the response to G-CSFref.
Finally, retrospective analysis of data in myeloma patients from a single
institution has shown that for patients who have undergone as many as 4
attempts at mobilization, only 1 of the 4 may yield an adequate collection.
It is possible that AMD3100 will find a niche in this hard to mobilize
population: in an ongoing trial at the University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences in myeloma patients who have previously failed to collect at least
5 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg, it provides adequate mobilization
in a significant number of patients. Although many variables may affect
the decision of how and when to mobilize a myeloma patient, the following
is a generally useful approach :
-
attempt first collection relatively early, i.e., with < 12 months prior
therapy.
-
attempt collection first with chemotherapy plus growth factor (except for
patients over 70 with > 12 months prior therapy and platelets < 200
x 109/L, for whom growth factors alone may be tried first).
The choice of growth factor (G-CSF versus GM-CSF) may depend on data under
development regarding the importance of early immune reconstitution on
time to progression and long-term disease-free survival. Pegylated filgrastim
may replace standard G-CSF if studies show it to be equivalent or better
than standard G-CSF.
-
if mobilization is inadequate and
-
a. patient is in CR or near-CR: wait at least 3 weeks, then remobilize
with combination growth factors. In the future, AMD3100 may be a possibility.
-
b. patient is not in CR or near-CR
: give planned chemotherapy and combine it with sequential GM-CSF and G-CSF.
Consider adding erythropoietin. In the future, AMD3100 may be a possibility.
-
if patient is not progressing, the procedure above may be repeated until
adequate cells are collected.
-
if patient is progressing, and adequate cells are available for autologous
transplant (>= 3 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg), monitor CD34+
cells in the blood at the time of leukocyte recovery, and consider collecting
HPCs if there is adequate mobilization.
-
if patient achieves a CR with transplant but does not mobilize adequately
to collect during the leukocyte recovery phase post-transplant, consider
attempting collection with combination growth factors at least 1 year after
transplant.
-
mobilization of autologous HSCs : although
early attempts to use unmobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) for
autologous
stem cell transplantation were problematic, the use of cytokines such
as G-CSF to enhance the peripheralization of CD34+ cells and
the collection of these stem cells using leukapheresis procedures has become
the standard for autologous stem cell transplantation around the worldref.
IBMTR and EBMT data suggest that over 80–90% of all autologous stem cell
transplants in the world are performed using cytokine or chemotherapy/cytokine
mobilized PBSCs as a source of stem cellsref.
In addition to reducing patient morbidity, the use of mobilized PBSCs has
resulted in higher CD34 content of grafts, shorter hospital stays, and
reduced engraftment times for both neutrophils and platelets as well as
improved lymphocyte recovery resulting in enhanced immunologic reconstitution
when compared to patients receiving autologous BMref1,
ref2,
ref3,
ref4.
These beneficial effects of mobilized PBSCs as a source of stem cells for
autologous stem cell transplantation have been confirmed in a number of
randomized trialsref1,
ref2,
ref3,
ref4,
ref5.
-
mobilization of allogeneic HSCs : based on
the sustained success of using mobilized PBSCs for autologous stem cell
transplantation, investigators began to pilot the use of PBSCs for allogeneic
stem cell transplantation. Initial concerns focused on the possibility
of increased risk of acute and chronic GVHD due to the presence of 10-
to 50-fold increased numbers of T cells present in mobilized PBSC products.
It was not clear if the function of mobilized allogeneic T cells might
be qualitatively altered resulting in even greater risk of GVHD or relapse.
In addition, the risk of infusing increased numbers of CMV+
granulocytes, dendritic cells, and monocytes into both CMV-
and
CMV+ recipients remained unknown and potentially posed an increased
risk to the recipient. On the other hand, mobilized PBSCs contain 3-
to 4-fold more CD34+ cells, which might result in faster
engraftment and more efficient transformation to complete donor chimersim.
Early Phase 2 studies demonstrated that G-CSF had a generalized effect
on the peripheralization of many different types of allogeneic peripheral
blood cells, not just CD34+ cells. These data are consistent
with the notion that G-CSF has a generalized effect on remodeling the BM
microenvironment, which results in the egress of many types of cells including
T cells and monocytes. Activation of neutrophils by cytokines such as G-CSF
results in the release of proteases that facilitate the egress of HSCs
from the BM microenvironment. Interruption of the G-CSF signal through
genetically "knocking out" the G-CSF receptor results in not only the expected
elimination of G-CSF-induced mobilization of HSCs but also IL-8- and chemotherapy-induced
HSC mobilization in these G-CSF receptor knock-out miceref1,
ref2.
Although it is not completely clear which is the most important tether
binding HSCs to the microenvironment, LFA-1, VLA-4, CXCR4, and c-kit have
all been implicated as critical stem cell adhesion moleculesref1,
ref2,
ref3,
ref4.
Likewise, a number of neutrophil-specific enzymes have been implicated
in mediating critical cleavages that result in stem cell egress from the
microenvironment. These include neutrophil elastase, cathepsin G, proteinase
3, gelatinase B (MMP-9), and other metalloproteinasesref1,
ref2,
ref3,
ref4.
Recent evidence has strongly implicated CD26, a CD34-associated protease,
as the prime protease that may cleave SDF-1 off the marrow microenvironment
resulting in the release of CD34+ HSCs into the peripheryref.
Of interest, a collaborative effort of the Link, Simmons and Levesque laboratories
have shown that mice deficient in MMPq, neturophil elastase and cathepsin-G
and mice deficient in dipeptidyl peptidase I (CD26) all mobilized hematopietic
precursors in response to G-CSF normally. These data question the role
of neutrophil specific proteins in stem cell egress
-
effects of G-CSF mobilization on allograft content
: although a number of cytokines and cytokine combinations have been used
to mobilize autologous HSCs, only filgrastim
and sargramostim
have been approved by the Food and Durg Administration (FDA) for use as
autologous stem cell mobilizing agents. Thus, these have been the only
cytokines used to mobilize allogeneic PBSCs. The majority of the initial
Phase 2 studies using mobilized PBSCs in an allogeneic setting utilized
G-CSF (10–16 µg/kg/day for 5 days). Leukapheresis was performed on
day 4 or day 5 after G-CSF treatment. Fischmeister et alref
followed CD34+ in the peripheral blood after either G-CSF or
GM-CSF treatment and showed that CD34+ cells peaked in the blood
between days +4 and +5 for G-CSF and days +5 and +6 after GM-CSF treatment.
Data from Seattle suggested that larger doses of G-CSF (16 µg/kg/day)
may result in even higher CD34 yields at the time of pheresis on day 5ref.
We have assessed the effect of 5 days of of G-CSF (10 µg/kg) on the
numbers of leukocyte subsets in the peripheral blood of 100 consecutive
normal allogeneic PBSC donors. It is clear from these data that G-CSF has
a pleiotropic effect of increasing the numbers of circulating neutrophils
and monocytes (WBC) as well as T cells (both CD4 and CD8), NK cells and
B cells. Korbling and Anderlini compared the allograft content after G-CSF
mobilization to cellular contents of BM harvests. These data suggest a
3- to 4-fold enhancement of CD34+ cells and a 10- to 20-fold
increase in the number of CD3+ T cells in PBSC products compared to BM
harvestsref
It is well known that certain factors may help predict those autologous
stem cell recipients who might be expected to be "poor mobilizers." These
include extent of previous treatment, treatment with certain drugs such
as nitrosoureas and certain diseases such as Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s
lymphomas and preleukemic syndromes. No such data exist for allogeneic
donors. We have examined stem cell mobilization from over 400 HLA-matched
sibling donors since 1995. Using G-CSF as the sole mobilizing agent, only
2.0% of normal donors mobilized with G-CSF (10 µg/kg/day; 20 L exchange
on day 5) did not achieve > 2 x 106 CD34/kg and 25% did not
achieve > 5 x 106 CD34/kg after a single collection. These data
have been recapitulated by other groups. We have studied the few normal
donors who did not achieve > 1 x 106 CD34/kg after 3 collections
(1.0% of all normal donors in our data set). All of these donors underwent
BM harvests as well but these all yielded < 1.0 x 106 CD34
cells consistent with the notion that these poor allogeneic PBSC mobilizers
were not defective in cytokine induced mobization per se but had low levels
of BM stem cell reserves. Brown et al26 correlated premobilization PB CD34/mL
with G-CSF-induced mobilization. None of the normal allogeneic donors who
had < 2000 CD34/mL prior to mobilization yielded > 5 x 106
CD34+ cells/kg while 95% of those normal donors with > 4000
CD34/mL PB yielded > 5 x 106 CD34/kg after G-CSF mobilization.
Although provocative, this has not been widely accepted as a method of
identifying poor autologous or allogeneic PBSC donors. In the mid- and
late-1990s, a large number of small Phase 2 studies were performed using
mobilized PBSCs as a source of HSCs for allogeneic stem cell transplantation.
All of these studies yielded similar results. Although neutrophil and platelet
recovery was enhanced using cytokine mobilized allogeneic PBSCs, rates
of acute GVHD were similar or less than that documented for BM as a source
of allogeneic HSCs. The majority, but not all of these early studies, demonstrated
increased actuarial rates of limited and extensiveref1,
ref2,
ref3
chronic GVHD (cGVHD). Cost and hospitalization appeared to be reduced compared
to patients transplanted using allogeneic BM in these small Phase 2 studies.
Similar to many autologous PBSC studies, the number of allogeneic CD34
cells infused correlated well with both neutrophil and platelet engraftment.
Brown demonstrated that those allogeneic PBSC recipients who had > 5 x
106 CD34/kg infused had a 95% chance of both neutrophil and
platelet engraftment by day +15ref.
In this study, no correlation could be found between GVHD or survival and
the number of CD3+ cells infused. In one retrospective study
by the MD Anderson group, infusion of > 8 x 106/kg CD34 resulted
in decreased survival presumably due to increased rates of cGVHD associated
complicationsref.
These data have not been corroborated by other groups. Therefore, the infusion
of high numbers (> 8 x 106 CD34/kg) of allogeneic stem cells
remains a controversial negative predictor for outcomes after allogeneic
PBSC transplantation.
A major question is whether allogeneic stem cell harvesting results
in less morbidity than BM harvesting for allogeneic stem cell donors. Anderlini
et alref
reviewed 1448 mobilized allogeneic PBSC collections from the IBMTR and
EBMT registries. G-CSF was used in > 99% of donors. Similar to multiple
Phase 2 studies, 20% of normal donors required placement of a central line
for apheresis. 11% required > 2 leukapheresis procedures and "serious complications"
occurred in 1.1% of allogeneic PBSC collection versus 0.5% after BM harvest.
Rowley et alref
utilized an 11-point scale (0 = minimum and 10 = maximum) for 23 different
symptoms occurring during the first 14 days after either BM or PBSC collection.
There were no statistical differences between the PBSC and BM groups for
any of the symptom complexes or for the severity of any symptoms.
Many of the Phase 2 studies assessing the role of mobilized allogeneic
PBSCs on GVHD, relapse and overall survival are limited by design (Phase
2), paucity of patients, short-term follow-up, and heterogeneity of diseases
for which allogeneic PBSC transplantation was performed. Several trials
have provided insight into the relative effect of PBSC versus BM on GVHD,
relapse, and survival. These include randomized studies, case control retrospective
studies, and meta-analyses. Table 1 summarizes the results of all randomized
trials comparing BM and PB as a source of stem cells for allogeneic stem
cell transplantationref1,
ref2,
ref3,
ref4,
ref5,
ref6,
ref7.
Half of these trials suffer from low numbers of patients. The 3 largest
studiesref1,
ref2,
ref3
demonstrate no significant difference in overall survival when peripheral
blood is compared to BM as a source of allogeneic stem cells. These studies,
similar to the smaller randomized trials, did demonstrate a significant
enhancement in both neutrophil and platelet recovery consistent with the
significantly increased numbers of CD34 cells that are harvested in mobilized
allogeneic PBSC products compared with BM. Randomized trials comparing
allogeneic peripheral blood to bone marrow :
|
study
|
n |
absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (engraftment (days) ANC > 500/mm3)
|
PLT (engraftment (days) Plt > 25000/mm3)
|
TRM
|
aGvHD
|
cGVHD
|
OS
|
|
PB
|
BM
|
PB
|
BM
|
PB, %
|
BM, %
|
PB, %
|
BM, %
|
PB, %
|
BM, %
|
PB, %
|
BM, %
|
| Vigoritoref |
37 |
16 |
18 |
12 |
17 |
78 |
63 |
27 |
19 |
100 |
50 |
47 |
51 |
| Blaiseref |
101 |
15 |
21 |
13 |
21 |
23 |
21 |
44 |
42 |
50 |
28 |
61 |
61 |
| Powlesref |
39 |
17.5 |
23 |
11 |
18 |
31 |
35 |
68 |
58 |
44 |
40 |
70 |
68 |
| Heldalref |
61 |
17 |
23 |
13 |
21 |
17 |
10 |
21 |
10 |
56 |
27 |
80 |
73 |
| Schmitzref |
350 |
12 |
15 |
15 |
20 |
ND |
ND |
52 |
39 |
74 |
53 |
ND |
ND |
| Coubanref |
228 |
19 |
22 |
16 |
22 |
7.5 |
16 |
40 |
40 |
71 |
55 |
68 |
55 |
| Bensingerref |
172 |
16 |
21 |
13 |
19 |
21 |
30 |
64 |
57 |
46 |
35 |
66 |
54 |
In one of the largest and best-designed studies, Bensinger et alref,
using identical conditioning regimens, GVHD prophylaxis (cyclosporine and
methotrexate), and post-transplant growth factor support (no G-CSF), found
a slight advantage in both disease-free and overall survival in those patients
receiving mobilized allogeneic stem cells versus BM (P = .03 and P = .06,
respectively). Although there was no difference in probability of 2-year
overall survival in the subgroup of patients with less advanced disease
(75% for PB and 72% for BM), those patients with more advanced disease
demonstrated a significantly enhanced overall survival when mobilized allogeneic
PBSCs were used as a source of stem cells (57% for PB and 33% for BM; P
= .04). With a median follow-up for all surviving patients of 26 months
(9–47 months), the cumulative incidence of grade III–IV acute GVHD at 100
days was 64% in the PB group and 57% in the BM group (P = .35).
The cumulative incidence of grade II–IV acute GVHD was 15% in the PB group
and 12% in the BM group (P = NS). Although the follow-up was relatively
short, the cumulative incidence of extensive cGVHD was 46% in the PB group
and 35% in the BM group (P = .54). These results were inconsistent with
many of the other smaller Phase 2 and Phase 3 studies, which all showed
no difference in rates of acute GVHD and increased rates of cGVHD in recipients
of allogeneic PBSC.
A recent meta-analysis was performed by Cutler et alref
summarizing 15 Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials assessing the risk of GVHD in
recipients of allogeneic PBSC and BM. This analysis demonstrated a modest
increased relative risk of acute GVHD (RR = 1.2) and a significant increased
risk of developing cGVHD (RR = 1.8) in recipients of allogeneic PBSCs.
It also demonstrated a modest reduction in relative risk of relapse in
recipients of allogeneic PBSCs compared to BM (RR = 0.8). Champlin et al
and the IBMTR40 performed a retrospective case controlled study comparing
the outcomes of recipients of allogeneic PBSCs and BM. Median follow-up
was 1 year, and this study focused on 1-year outcomes. A total of 288 HLA-identical
sibling PBSC recipients was compared with 536 case control allogeneic BM
recipients. All patients received T-replete stem cell products. There was
no significant difference in the incidence of grades II–IV acute GVHD (40%
for PB and 35% for BM; P = NS) or grades III–IV acute GVHD (13% for PB
and 19% for BM; P = NS). There was less variability in recovery times of
both platelets and neutrophils after allogeneic PBSC compared to BM and
statistically faster neutrophil and platelet recovery after allogeneic
PBSC compared to allogeneic BM. Treatment-related mortality (TRM), disease-free
survival, and overall survival were similar for patients with acute leukemia
in first remission. In contrast, acute leukemia patients in second remission
and patients with CML in accelerated phase experienced lower TRM, improved
DFS and overall survival when allogeneic PBSCs were used as a source of
stem cells. There was no apparent difference in the risk of relapse after
allogeneic PBSC versus BM transplantation. There was a trend toward lower
relapse rates in patients with high-risk leukemia (acute leukemia in second
remission and CML in accelerated phase). The relative risk of both limited
and extensive cGVHD was increased in recipients of allogeneic PBSCs (RR
= 1.3). Mohty et alref
have performed the only long-term follow-up of allogeneic PBSC and BM recipients
focusing specifically on the rates of cGVHD. At a median follow-up of 45
months (range 31–57 months), the 3-year cumulative incidence of cGVHD was
65% in the PBSC group (n = 53) and 36% in the BM group (n = 48) (P = .004).
Extensive chronic GVHD was also more frequent in the PBSC group (44% versus
17%; P = .004). These data suggest that although hematopoietic recovery
is increased in recipients of allogeneic PBSC, there appears to be no increased
risk of acute GVHD and a modest increase risk of cGVHD including extensive
cGVHD. Overall survival in recipients of allogeneic PBSCs may be improved
modestly but only in those patients with more advanced hematologic malignancies.
Although no study has correlated rates of either acute or chronic GVHD
with the number of CD3 cells/kg in the stem cell products, several studies
have suggested that CD34 cells in excess of 8 x 106/kg found
in allogeneic PBSC products are associated with a greater risk of both
acute GVHD and GVHD.
Impact of G-CSF mobilization on graft content
and immune reconstitution : very little data exist on the relative
impact of allogeneic PBSCs versus BM on immunologic reconstitution after
allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Storek et alref
analyzed the incidence of documented and suspected infections after transplantation
of mobilized allogeneic PBSCs and BM in the randomized trial carried out
by Bensinger et alref.
The cumulative incidence of infections was higher in the allogeneic BM
group (120 versus 90 at 1 year). Since rates of acute GVHD after allogeneic
PBSC infusions are similar to BM in spite of these products having 10-
to 50-fold increased CD3 cells/kg over allogeneic BM products, a number
of investigators have tried to understand the reason for this. To date,
no studies have clearly shown a difference in either B-cell or T-cell recovery
after allogeneic PBSC transplantation compared to BM transplantation. A
number of reports have emphasized the role of cytokines as mediators of
GVHD. Cytokines produced by both CD4 and CD8 T cells can be segregated
into two patterns: type I cytokines such as interferon- and IL-2 and type
2 cytokines, such as IL-4 and IL-10. Type 1 cytokines are proinflammatory
and type 2 cytokines are considered anti-inflammatory. Multiple studies
have shown that T cells that elaborate Th1 cytokines mediate
GVHD whereas those T cells that elaborate type 2 cytokines (Th2
cells) inhibit GVHD. Pan et alref
demonstrated that splenocytes from mice mobilized with G-CSF were polarized
toward the Th2 phenotype. Those mice who received splenocytes
from G-CSF-mobilized donor mice demonstrated significantly longer survival
and less GVHD that those allogeneic transplant recipient mice who were
infused with splenocytes from naïve unmobilized donor mice. T cells
from G-CSF treated mice showed a significant increase in IL-4 production
with a simultaneous decreas