Impact of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) on Clinical Outcomes in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Does Speeding Up Neutrophil Engraftment Make a Difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Despite decades of post–allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) growth factor utilization, its role remains undefined, leading to ongoing debates and research. The theoretical impacts of growth factors have been challenged in numerous studies. Methods. In this retrospective cohort study conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, we analyzed the clinical outcomes of 509 patients who underwent allogeneic HCT between May 1, 2019, and May 31, 2022. This study aimed to assess the impact of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration posttransplantation on neutrophil and platelet engraftment, incidence of bloodstream infections (BSIs), graft-versus-host disease, engraftment syndrome (ES), and survival metrics including overall survival, nonrelapse mortality, and graft-versus-host disease–free/relapse-free survival. Results. Our findings indicate that G-CSF administration expedited neutrophil engraftment (16 versus 18 d, P = 0.009) and was associated with a decreased incidence of BSI (9.4% versus 31.3%, P = 0.014). However, this benefit was counterbalanced by a significant delay in platelet engraftment (21 versus 17 d, P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified mismatched donors (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.88; P = 0.038) and the duration of G-CSF therapy (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.09; P = 0.038) as independent predictors for the development of ES. Despite these hematological impacts, there was no observed advantage in overall survival, nonrelapse mortality, or graft-versus-host disease–free/relapse-free survival among patients who received G-CSF compared with those who did not. Conclusions. Although G-CSF post-HCT expedited neutrophil engraftment and reduced BSI risk, it did not result in a survival advantage. The association with ES necessitates careful consideration.
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) | 0.001 | 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".