Is split-dose better than single-dose? Results of Turkish Stem Cell Coordination Center (TURKOK) donors in the era of rising biosimilar G-CSF.

BACKGROUND: Turkish Stem Cell Coordination Center (TURKOK) carries out the procurement process of unrelated allogeneic hematopoietic stem cells in Turkey. This study aims to compare the efficacy of both once-daily and divided-dose G-CSF administration and the original and biosimilar G-CSF use and the frequency and severity of adverse events in TURKOK donors. METHOD: The study was conducted retrospectively with 142 healthy TURKOK donors. For PBSC mobilization, two different subcutaneous G-CSF programs were used as 10 µ/kg/day single-dose and 5 µ/kg/12 h. Neupogen (Amgen, Puerto Rico) and Tevagrastim (Teva, Kfar Saba, Israel) were used as G-CSF. All donors started apheresis on the fifth day, and all side effects were recorded during the procedure. RESULTS: Stem cell yield was similar between single-dose and divided-doses based on donor weight, favoring the split-dose based on recipient weight (P = .506 and P = .023, respectively). Both G-CSF posologies were comparable if the target CD34+ cell yield was ≥4 × 106 /kg. CD34+ cell yield was equivalent when evaluated against recipient weight, significantly favoring Tevagrastim vs Neupogen by donor weight (P = .740 and P = .021, respectively). Side effects, duration of pain, and need for analgesia favor Tevagratim over Neupogen. CONCLUSION: Split-dose may be recommended for cases where the need for large numbers of CD34+ cells to be harvested is anticipated due to significant cell yield relative to recipient weight. However, sufficient hematopoietic stem cells can be collected with both posology. Tevagrastim is non-inferiority effective to Neupogen. Side effects during administration are both low-grade and temporary.

Why do some patients with stage 1A and 1B endometrial endometrioid carcinoma experience recurrence? A retrospective study in search of prognostic factors.

OBJECTIVES: Endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC) is the most encountered subtype of endometrial cancer (EC). Our study aimed to investigate the factors affecting recurrence in patients with stage 1A and 1B EEC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our study included 284 patients diagnosed with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage 1A/1B EEC in our center from 2010 to 2018. The clinicopathological characteristics of the patients were obtained retrospectively from their electronic files. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 60 years (range 31-89). The median follow-up time of the patients was 63.6 months (range 3.3-185.6). Twenty-two (7.74%) patients relapsed during follow-up. Among the relapsed patients, 59.1% were at stage 1A ECC, and 40.9% were at stage 1B. In our study, the one-, three-, and five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 98.9%, 95.4%, and 92.9%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, grade and tumor size were found to be independent parameters of RFS in all stage 1 EEC patients. Furthermore, the Ki-67 index was found to affect RFS in stage 1A EEC patients, and tumor grade affected RFS in stage 1B EEC patients. In the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the statistically significant cut-off values were determined for tumor size and Ki-67 index in stage 1 EEC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Stage 1-EEC patients in the higher risk group in terms of tumor size, Ki-67, and grade should be closely monitored for recurrence. Defining the prognostic factors for recurrence in stage 1 EEC patients may lead to changes in follow-up algorithms.

The impact of Ki-67 index, squamous differentiation, and several clinicopathologic parameters on the recurrence of low and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer.

Endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC) represents approximately 75-80% of endometrial carcinoma cases. Three hundred and thirty-six patients with EEC followed-up in the authors' medical center between 2010 and 2018 were included in our study. Two hundred and seventy-two low and intermediate EEC patients were identified using the European Society for Medical Oncology criteria and confirmed by histopathological examination. Recurrence was reported in 17 of these patients. The study group consisted of patients with relapse. A control group of 51 patients was formed at a ratio of 3:1 according to age, stage, and grade, similar to that in the study group. Of the 17 patients with recurrent disease, 13 patients (76.5%) were Stage 1A, and 4 patients (23.5%) were Stage 1B. No significant difference was found in age, stage, and grade between the case and control groups (p > 0.05). Body mass index, parity, tumor size, lower uterine segment involvement, SqD, and Ki-67 index with p<0.25 in the univariate logistic regression analysis were included in the multivariate analysis. Ki-67 was statistically significant in multivariate analysis (p = 0.018); however, there was no statistical significance in SqD and other parameters. Our data suggest that the Ki-67 index rather than SqD needs to be assessed for recurrence in patients with low- and intermediate-risk EEC.