4.7 Article

The graft content of donor T cells expressing γδTCR+ and CD4+foxp3+ predicts the risk of acute graft versus host disease after transplantation of allogeneic peripheral blood stem cells from unrelated donors

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 2916-2922

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2602

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Recently, high numbers of regulatory T cells within the stem cell graft were described to be associated with less graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after related peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT). Studies in mice also suggest a distinct role of gamma delta TCR+ T cells in mediating GVHD. Therefore, the aim of this study was to define the yet-unknown role of regulatory and gamma delta TCR+ Tcells in human PBSCT from unrelated donors. Experimental Design: The frequency of both T-cell subsets within the graft was analyzed in 63 patients receiving unrelated allogeneic PBSCT The respective amounts were quantified by flow cytometry and PCR and further correlated with clinical outcome. Results: The grafts contained a median of 11.2 x 10(6) /kg CD4(+)foxp3(+) and 9.8 x 10(6) /kg gamma delta TCR+ Tcells, respectively. Patients receiving more CD4(+)foxp3(+) cells had a lower cumulative incidence of acute GVHD II-IV (44% versus 65%, P = 0.03). Interestingly, in patients who received higher concentrations of donor gamma delta TCR+ T cells, acute GVHD II-IV was more frequent (66% versus 40%, P = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, only the graft concentration of gamma delta TCR+ Tcells (P = 0.002) and a positive cytomegalovirus status of the recipient (P = 0.03) were significantly associated with the occurrence of acute GVHD II-IV. Conclusion: Graft composition of T-cell subsets seems to affect the outcome of patients receiving allogeneic PBSCT from unrelated donors. Therefore, selective manipulation or add-back of particular subsets might be a promising strategy to reduce the incidence of GVHD.

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

4.7
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