4.2 Article

Higher Early Monocyte and Total Lymphocyte Counts Are Associated with Better Overall Survival after Standard Total Body Irradiation, Cyclophosphamide, and Fludarabine Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Double Umbilical Cord Blood Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in Adults

期刊

BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 1473-1479

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.04.015

关键词

Hematological recovery; Immune recovery; Reduced-intensity conditioning regimen; Double umbilical cord blood; Allogeneic stem cell transplantation; Adults

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This single-center retrospective study aimed to report the impact of early hematopoietic and immune recoveries after a standard total body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine (TCF) reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen for double umbilical cord blood (dUCB) allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) in adults. We analyzed 47 consecutive patients older than 17 years who engrafted after a dUCB TCF allo-SCT performed between January 2006 and April 2013 in our department. Median times for neutrophil and platelet recoveries were 17 (range, 6 to 59) and 37 days (range, 0 to 164), respectively. The 3-year overall (OS) and disease-free survivals, relapse incidence, and nonrelapse mortality were 65.7%, 57.2%, 27.1%, and 19%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, higher day +30 monocyte (>= 615/mm(3); hazard ratio [HR], .04; 95% confidence interval [CI], .004 to .36; P <.01) and day +42 lymphocyte (>= 395/mm(3); HR, .16; 95% CI, .03 to .78; P =.02) counts were independently associated with better OS. These results suggest that early higher hematopoietic and immune recovery is predictive of survival after dUCB TCF RIC allo-SCT in adults. Factors other than granulocyte colony stimulating factor, which was used in all cases, favoring expansion of monocytes or lymphocytes, should be tested in the future as part of the UCB transplantation procedure. (C) 2016 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据