Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T08:05:11.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Clinical Effectiveness and Financial Impact of Utilizing Peripheral Blood Progenitor Cells as Rescue Therapy following Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Andrew J. Kucharski ,
Richard Ghalie ,
Sharon Greenstein  and
Karl Matuszewski
Andrew J. Kucharski
Affiliation:
Immunex Corporation
Richard Ghalie
Affiliation:
Immunex Corporation
Sharon Greenstein
Affiliation:
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center
Karl Matuszewski
Affiliation:
University Hospital Consortium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of peripheral blood progenitor cell transplant as rescue therapy after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplant significantly decreases transfusion, laboratory, room, and total charges. An improvement in clinical indicators also points toward decreased patient morbidity. Additional cost reductions may be realized by greater utilization of outpatient care, thereby further reducing room and total charges.

Type
Research Notes
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Winter 1996 , pp. 172 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Boring, C. C., Squires, T. C., Tong, T., & Montgomery, S.Cancer statistics. CA: A Journal for Clinicians, 1994, 44, 7–26.Google Scholar
2.Brandt, S. J., William, P. P., Atwater, S. K. et al. Effect of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on hematopoietic reconstitution after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 318, 869–76.Google Scholar
3.Ghalie, R., Zimmerman, T., Bender, J. et al. Randomized comparison of peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) vs. chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy and G-CSF. Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1994, 13, 79.Google Scholar
4.Gianni, A., Bregni, M., Siena, S. et al. Rapid and complete hemopoietic reconstitution following combined transplantation of autologous blood and bone marrow cells: A changing role for high-dose chemo-radiotherapy? Hematology Oncology, 1989, 7, 139–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Gianni, A. M., Bregni, M., Siena, S. et al. Recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor reduces hematologic toxicity and widens clinical applicability of high-dose cyclophosphamide treatment in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1990, 8, 761–64.Google Scholar
6.Metcalf, D.The molecular control of cell division, differentiation, commitment and maturation in haemopoietic cells. Nature, 1989, 339, 27–30.Google Scholar
7.Nemunaitis, J., Singer, J. W., Buckner, D. C. et al. Use of recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in autologous marrow transplantation for lymphoid malignancies. Blood, 1988, 72, 834–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Peters, W. P., Kurtzberg, J., Altwater, S. et al. Comparative effects of rhu G-CSF on hematopoietic reconstitution and granulocyte function following high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation (AMBT). Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1989, 8, 181.Google Scholar
9.Sheridan, W. P., Morstyn, G., Wolf, M. et al. Effects of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) following chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. Lancet, 1989, 1, 1194–98.Google Scholar
10.Spitzer, G., Atkins, D. R., Spencer, V. et al. Randomized study of growth factors post- peripheral-blood stem cell transplant: Neutrophil recovery is improved with modest clinical benefit. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1994, 12, 661–70.Google Scholar