Comparison of peripheral blood progenitor cell yield from standard chemotherapy used in the treatment of lymphoid malignancies and high‐dose cyclophosphamide: a retrospective review of 141 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPCs) are often collected after mobilization with high-dose cyclophosphamide (HDC) combined with growth factors. HDC may not be needed for PBPC mobilization, and patients with lymphoid malignancies can be harvested with treatment regimens of chemotherapy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 141 patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma whose PBPCs were harvested after chemotherapy. The PBPC yield and time to mobilization was compared between patients who received HDC (n = 51) and other chemotherapy regimens (n = 90) including high-dose cyclophosphamide and etoposide (HDC plus VP-16; n = 41), CHOP, ESHAP, ABVD, VAD, and others (n = 49). A multiple linear regression model and proportional hazards model determined factors influencing yield and time to mobilization, respectively. RESULTS: The difference in mean yield between HDC and all non-HDC regimens was significant, with HDC plus VP-16 resulting in the highest yields. The proportion of patients achieving a CD34 count in excess of 5 x 10(6) per kg did not differ significantly between the regimens. In a multiple linear regression model, HDC plus VP-16 resulted in a higher PBPC yield than HDC but all other regimens did not. In addition, patients exposed to more than one prior chemotherapy regimen had lower yield regardless of the mobilization regimen. The mean number of days to mobilization with HDC was 10.2 days, 17.1 days for HDC plus VP-16, and 14.2 days for all other regimens. The timing of mobilization was influenced by the chemotherapy used and the number of prior regimens in a proportional hazards model. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate a higher mean yield of PBPCs with HDC plus VP-16 but no difference in yield between non-HDC plus VP-16 regimens used for first-line or relapse therapy and HDC, suggesting that HDC may be an unnecessary additional therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".