4.7 Article

Immunologic purging of autologous peripheral blood stem cell products based on CD34 and CD133 expression can be effectively and safely applied in half of the acute myeloid leukemia patients

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 13, 页码 4793-4801

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0031

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Several studies have shown survival benefit by autologous stem cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after purging of grafts. This has, however, not been confirmed in randomized studies due to high toxicity of purging modalities for normal progenitor/stem cells. In this study, we investigated whether positive selection for CD34(+) and/or CD133(+) cells, which results in high recovery of normal progenitor/stem cells, is applicable for purging AML grafts. Experimental Design: Positive selections of normal stem cells using CD34 and/or CD133 can be done if one or both markers are absent or have dim expression and remain so during the course of the disease. Marker expressions in newly diagnosed AML were measured with flow cytometry using a cutoff value for positivity of 1%. Stability of marker expression was studied by pairwise comparison of material at diagnosis and relapse. Leukemia associated phenotype expression was used to measure the efficacy of tumor cell reduction. Results: In newly diagnosed AML (n = 165), we found no CD34 and/or CD133 expression in 32% of the cases and dim expression in 20% of the cases. No increase in the percentage of CD34(+) cells (n = 44) and CD133(+) cells (n = 29) was found in corresponding relapses. Positive selection using grafts contaminated with AML blasts, showing either no or dim expression of CD34 or CD133, resulted in a 3 to 4 log tumor cell reduction (n = 11) with median 50% recovery of normal stem cells. Conclusions: Purging by positive selection of CD34(+) and/or CD133(+) cells can safely, effectively, and reproducibly be applied in about 50% of AML cases.

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