Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34+ cells in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

<bold>Background: </bold>Data are limited on the long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) pegfilgrastim (PEG) and lipegfilgrastim (LIPEG) compared with filgrastim (FIL) regarding the mobilization efficiency of CD34+ cells, graft cellular composition, and engraftment.<bold>Study Design and Methods: </bold>In this prospective nonrandomized study, 36 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma received FIL, 67 received PEG, and 16 patients received LIPEG as a cytokine after chemotherapy. We analyzed the mobilization and collection of CD34+ cells, cellular composition of blood grafts, and hematologic recovery after auto-SCT according to the type of G-CSF used.<bold>Results: </bold>Patients in the LIPEG group had fewer apheresis sessions (1 vs. 2, p = 0.021 for FIL and p = 0.111 for PEG) as well as higher median blood CD34+ cell counts at the start of the first apheresis (LIPEG 74 × 106 /L vs. FIL 31 × 106 /L, p = 0.084 or PEG 27 × 106 /L, p = 0.021) and CD34+ yields of the first apheresis (FIL 5.1 × 106 /kg vs. FIL 2.3 × 106 /kg, p = 0.105 or PEG 1.8 × 106 /kg, p = 0.012). Also, the costs associated with G-CSF mobilization and apheresis were lower in the LIPEG group. The graft composition was comparable except for the higher infused CD34+ cell counts in the LIPEG group. The engraftment kinetics were significantly slower in the FIL group.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>LIPEG appears to be more efficient compared with PEG after chemotherapy to mobilize CD34+ cells for auto-SCT demonstrated as fewer sessions of aphereses needed as well as 2.8-fold CD34+ cell yields on the first apheresis day. Early hematologic recovery was more rapid in the LIPEG group. Thus further studies on LIPEG in the mobilization setting are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]