论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨利用人外周血单核细胞制备树突状细胞(dendritic cell,DC)疫苗过程中,使用重组人粒细胞集落刺激因子(recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor,rhG-CSF)和重组人粒细胞巨噬细胞集落刺激因子(recombinant human granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor,rhGM-CSF)进行动员的临床应用可行性,并比较两者作为动员试剂的优劣。方法对2011年8月至2013年12月中国人民解放军第81医院肿瘤生物治疗科进行DC疫苗治疗的恶性肿瘤患者134例进行随机分组,其中rhG-CSF动员者69例,rhGM-CSF动员者65例。rhG-CSF动员组在血细胞分离机采集前1天行rhG-CSF皮下注射3μg/(kg·d),rhGM-CSF动员组在血细胞分离机采集前1天行rhGMCSF皮下注射3μg/(kg·d)。比较两组动员前后血常规变化的差异;分析两组采集终产品中单个核细胞(mononuclear cell,MC)数量及表型,检测体外培养所得DC的数量、表型及细胞因子的表达。结果动员后rhGM-CSF动员组单核细胞增高值高于rhG-CSF动员组(P≤0.001),但中性粒细胞计数增高值低于rhG-CSF动员组(P≤0.001),其余血常规项目两者差异无统计学意义。rhGMCSF动员组采集终产品中单个核细胞数量高于rhG-CSF动员组(P=0.046),而CD14+单核细胞的比例两组差异无统计学意义。rhGM-CSF动员组最终诱导所得DC数量高于rh GCSF动员组(P=0.011),且DC细胞表面分子HLA-DR的表达高于rhG-CSF动员组(P=0.001),其余CD80、CD86,CD83、CD11C、CD54表达两组差异无统计学意义。两组DC细胞Th1型和Th2型细胞因子的表达差异都无统计学意义。结论在用人外周血单核细胞制备DC疫苗的过程中,使用rhGM-CSF动员比rhG-CSF更有优势。
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) on human dendritic cell (DC) vaccines using human peripheral blood mononuclear cells The feasibility of mobilizing rhGM-CSF by recombinant human granulocyte / macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhGM-CSF) was compared and the advantages and disadvantages of the two as mobilizing agents were compared. Methods A total of 134 patients with malignant tumor treated with DC vaccine in the Department of Tumor Biotherapy, the 81st Hospital of Chinese People’s Liberation Army from August 2011 to December 2013 were randomly divided into two groups, of which 69 were rhG-CSF mobilization and 65 were rhGM-CSF mobilization example. The rhG-CSF mobilization group received 3μg / (kg · d) rhG-CSF subcutaneously 1 day before the blood cell separator was collected. The rhGM-CSF mobilized group received rhGMCSF subcutaneous injection 3μg / (kg · d ). The differences of blood routine before and after the mobilization were compared between the two groups. The number and phenotype of mononuclear cells (MCs) in the final product of the two groups were analyzed. The number, phenotype and expression of cytokines in DC were detected. Results The mobilization of monocytes in rhGM-CSF mobilization group was higher than that in rhG-CSF mobilization group (P≤0.001), but the increase of neutrophil count was lower than that of rhG-CSF mobilization group (P≤0.001) The difference between the two items was not statistically significant. The number of mononuclear cells in the final product of rhGMCSF mobilization group was higher than that of rhG-CSF mobilization group (P = 0.046), while there was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of CD14 + monocytes. The number of DC induced by rhGM-CSF mobilization group was higher than rh GCSF mobilization group (P = 0.011), and the expression of HLA-DR on DC cells was higher than that of rhG-CSF mobilization group (P = 0.001) CD83, CD11C, CD54 expression was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the expression of Th1 and Th2 cytokines between the two groups of DCs. Conclusions The use of rhGM-CSF mobilization has advantages over rhG-CSF in the preparation of DC vaccines using human peripheral blood mononuclear cells.