论文部分内容阅读
目的 :比较化疗 +G CSF与化疗 +G CSF +GM CSF二种动员方案动员外周血干细胞 (PBSC)和造血重建的效果。方法 :将 33例患者 (急性白血病 2 3例 ,恶性淋巴瘤 9例 ,乳腺癌 1例 )分为化疗 +G CSF与化疗 +G CSF +GM CSF二组 ,化疗后WBC最低时开始分别应用G CSF 15 0 μg皮下注射 ,2 /d及G CSF15 0 μg、GM CSF 15 0μg ,皮下注射 ,上、下午各 1次。动员 3d后行PBSC采集。 结果 :二种动员方案比较 ,MNC、NC、CD34+细胞、GM CFU培养及造血功能重建均无明显差别。动员过程中 ,GM CSF组骨痛及发热明显患者难以耐受。结论 :化疗 +G CSF +GM CSF的动员方案 ,动员效果及造血功能重建并未优于化疗 +G CSF组 ,而耐受性差
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) and hematopoietic reconstitution in the two mobilization schemes of chemotherapy +G CSF and chemotherapy +G CSF +GM CSF. Methods: Thirty-three patients (23 acute leukemias, 9 malignant lymphomas, and 1 breast cancer) were divided into two groups: chemotherapy + G CSF and chemotherapy + G CSF + GM CSF. After chemotherapy, the lowest WBC was applied separately. CSF 150 μg subcutaneous injection, 2 /d and G CSF15 μg, GM CSF 150 μg, subcutaneous injection, 1 in the afternoon and 1 in the afternoon. After mobilization 3d, PBSC was collected. Results: There were no significant differences between the two mobilization protocols, MNC, NC, CD34+ cells, GM CFU culture, and hematopoietic function reconstruction. During the mobilization process, patients with bone pain and fever in the GM CSF group were difficult to tolerate. Conclusion : The mobilization scheme of chemotherapy +G CSF +GM CSF is not better than chemotherapeutic +G CSF group in the mobilization effect and hematopoietic function reconstruction, but poor tolerance