4.6 Article

Human leukocyte antigen-E mismatch is associated with better hematopoietic stem cell transplantation outcome in acute leukemia patients

期刊

HAEMATOLOGICA
卷 102, 期 11, 页码 1947-1955

出版社

FERRATA STORTI FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2017.169805

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Jose Carreras Leukamie-Stiftung e.V. [DJCLS 11/10, R 15/19]
  2. German Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service, Baden-Wuerttemberg - Hessen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The immunomodulatory role of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-E in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has not been extensively investigated. To this end, we genotyped 509 10/10 HLA unrelated transplant pairs for HLA-E, in order to study the effect of HLA-E as a natural killer (NK)-alloreactivity mediator on HSCT outcome in an acute leukemia (AL) setting. Overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), relapse incidence (RI) and non-relapse mortality (NRM) were set as endpoints. Analysis of our data revealed a significant correlation between HLA-E mismatch and improved HSCT outcome, as shown by both univariate (53% vs. 38%, P=0.002, 5-year OS) and multivariate (hazard ratio (HR)=0.63, confidence interval (CI) 95%=0.48-0.83, P=0.001) analyses. Further subgroup analysis demonstrated that the positive effect of HLA-E mismatch was significant and pronounced in advanced disease patients (n=120) (5-year OS: 50% vs. 18%, P=0.005; HR=0.40, CI 95%=0.22-0.72, P=0.002; results from univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively). The study herein is the first to report an association between HLA-E incompatibility and improved post-transplant prognosis in AL patients who have undergone matched unrelated HSCT. Combined NK and T cell HLA-E-mediated mechanisms may account for the better outcomes observed. Notwithstanding the necessity for in vitro and confirmational studies, our findings highlight the clinical relevance of HLA-E matching and strongly support prospective HLA-E screening upon donor selection for matched AL unrelated HSCTs.

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

4.6
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