4.6 Article

The role of collateral related donors in haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Journal

SCIENCE BULLETIN
Volume 63, Issue 20, Pages 1376-1382

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2018.08.008

Keywords

Haploidentical; Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; Collateral related donors; Paternal donors; Maternal donors

Funding

  1. Beijing Talents Fund [2015000021223ZK39]
  2. Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research [2018-4-4089]
  3. Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81530046]
  4. Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81621001]
  5. Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province of China [2016B030230003]
  6. Project of Health Collaborative Innovation of Guangzhou city [201704020214]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A key issue in the haploiedntical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT) setting is the search for the best donor, because donor selection can significantly impact the clinical outcomes. We aimed to identify the role of collateral related donors (CRDs) in donor selection for haplo-HSCT through comparing the clinical outcomes between CRDs (n = 60) and maternal donors (MDs, n = 296), which were the last choice of donor selection in immediate related donors (IRDs). The cumulative incidence of graft-versus-host disease was comparable between CRDs and MDs. The 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality was 22.0% (95% CI, 11.3%-32.7%) versus 17.4% (95% CI, 13.0%-21.8%) (P = 0.455) and 25.0% (95% CI, 13.9%-36.1%) versus 23.1% (95% CI, 18.2%-28.0%) (P = 0.721) for the CRDs and MDs, respectively. The 5-year probabilities of disease-free survival and overall survival was 53.2% (95% CI, 40.4%-66.0%) versus 59.5% (95% CI, 53.8%-65.2%) (P = 0.406) and 56.5% (95% CI, 43.8%-69.2%) versus 61.8% (95% CI, 56.1%-67.5%) (P = 0.458) for the CRDs and MDs, respectively. Female donor/male recipient (FDMR) CRDs were associated with the poorest clinical outcomes, and the clinical outcomes of non-FDMR CRDs were comparable to those of MDs. In summary, our results showed that CRDs did not showed superiority over MDs. Thus, IRDs should be the first choice of donor selection, and CRDs could only be the donors for those without IRDs. (C) 2018 Science China Press. Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science China Press. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available