4.5 Article

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for homozygous β-thalassemia and β-thalassemia/hemoglobin E patients from haploidentical donors

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 51, 期 6, 页码 813-818

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2016.7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ramathibodi Foundation
  2. National Research University Grant
  3. Mahidol University Research Grant
  4. Office of the Higher Education Commission
  5. Mahidol University under the National Research University Initiative, Thailand Research Fund
  6. Research Chair Grant from the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA)
  7. National Institutes of Health of United States [CCSG CA16672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thalassemia-free survival after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is about 80-90% with either matched-related or -unrelated donors. We explored the use of a mismatched-related ('haplo-') donor. All patients received two courses of pretransplant immunosuppressive therapy (PTIS) with fludarabine (Flu) and dexamethasone (Dxm). After two courses of PTIS, a conditioning regimen of rabbit antithymocyte globulin, Flu and IV busulfan (Bu) was given followed by T-cell-replete peripheral blood progenitor cells. GvHD prophylaxis consisted of cyclophosphamide (Cy) on days SCT +3 and +4 (post-Cy), and on day SCT +5 tacrolimus or sirolimus was started together with a short course of mycophenolate mofetil. Thirty-one patients underwent haplo-SCT. Their median age was 10 years (range, 2-20 years). Twenty-nine patients engrafted with 100% donor chimerism. Two patients suffered primary graft failure. Median time to neutrophil engraftment was 14 days (range, 11-18 days). Five patients developed mild to moderate, reversible veno-occlusive disease, while nine patients developed acute GvHD grade II. Only five patients developed limited-chronic GvHD. Projected overall and event-free survival rates at 2 years are 95% and 94%, respectively. The median follow up time is 12 months (range, 7-33 months).

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

4.5
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