The Induction Regimen Does Not Affect Stem-Cell Collection in Adult Patients with Ewing Sarcoma
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Ewing sarcoma (ES) is one of the most frequent sarcomas in children and young adults. Dose-intensified induction with vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and etoposide (VDC/IE) proved to be more efficient than vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin and etoposide (VIDE) and has emerged as a new standard. Here, we analyzed peripheral blood (pB) and stem-cell yields of adult patients after the induction with VDC/IE and compared them with historic control after VIDE induction. Methods: Stem-cell collections of 6 adult ES patients (all male) after VDC/IE were analyzed. Stimulation with filgrastim 5 µg/kg bid was applied in all patients. Results: All patients underwent stem-cell collection with a single apheresis without the use of plerixafor. Collections were performed after 2 (n = 2), 3 (n = 1), and 4 (n = 3) courses of induction chemotherapy. Median CD34+ in pB (/µL) was 176.3 compared to 68.3 in the historic cohort (p = 0.26). The median yields of CD34+, CD3+, and CD56+ (106 cells/kg body weight) in the actual and in the historic cohorts did not differ. No difference regarding the collection efficiency nor vitality 24 h after thawing of the cryoconserved products were noticed. Conclusion: Intensification of induction does not seem to affect the feasibility of stem-cell mobilization and the collection or graft composition in adult patients with ES. Confirmation of our findings in larger cohorts is warranted.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- The Induction Regimen Does Not Affect Stem-Cell Collection in Adult Patients with Ewing Sarcoma
- Date Crossref
- 16/02/2026
- Éditeur
- S. Karger AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.