4.7 Article

Reduced-intensity conditioning with combined haploidentical and cord blood transplantation results in rapid engraftment, low GVHD, and durable remissions

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 118, Issue 24, Pages 6438-6445

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-08-372508

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Genzyme Pharmaceuticals
  2. National Cancer Institute [K24 CA 116471]
  3. Genzyme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted a 45 patient prospective study of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) and transplantation of unrelated umbilical cord blood (UCB) and CD34(+) stem cells from a haploidentical family member. Median age was 50 years; weight was 80 kg. Fifty-eight percent had active disease. Neutrophil engraftment occurred at 11 days (interquartile range [IQR], 9-15) and platelet engraftment at 19 days (IQR, 15-33). In the majority of patients, early haploidentical engraftment was replaced by durable engraftment of UCB by 100 days, with regular persistence of minor host and/or haplo-hematopoiesis. Percentage of haplochimerism at day 100 correlated with the haplo-CD34 dose (P = .003). Cumulative incidence of acute GVHD (aGVHD) was 25% and chronic GVHD (cGVHD) was 5%. Actuarial survival at 1 year was 55%, progression-free survival (PFS) was 42%, nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 28%, and relapse was 30%. RIC and haplo-cord transplantation results in fast engraftment of neutrophils and platelets, low incidences of aGVHD and cGVHD, low frequency of delayed opportunistic infections, reduced transfusion requirements, shortened length of hospital stay, and promising long-term outcomes. UCB cell dose had no impact on time to hematopoietic recovery. Therefore, UCB selection can prioritize matching, and better matched donors can be identified rapidly for most patients. This study is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov as NCI clinical trial no. NCT00943800. (Blood. 2011;118(24):6438-6445)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available