4.7 Article

Rapid and complete donor chimerism in adult recipients of unrelated donor umbilical cord blood transplantation after reduced-intensity conditioning

期刊

BLOOD
卷 102, 期 5, 页码 1915-1919

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2002-11-3337

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01-CA65493, P30 CA008748] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL 63452] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reduced-intensity conditioning may reduce transplantation-related mortality in high-risk adults undergoing hematopoietic transplantation. We investigated unrelated donor umbilical cord blood (UCB) transplantation after such conditioning in 43 patients (median age, 49.5 years; range, 22-65 years) with a primary end point of donor engraftment. The first 21 patients received busulfan 8 mg/kg, fludarabine 200 mg/m(2), and 200 cGy of total body irradiation (Bu/Flu/TBI). Subsequent patients (n=22) received cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg, fludarabine 200 mg/m(2), and 200 cGy TBI (Cy/Flu/TBI). UCB grafts (93%) were 1-2 HLA antigen-mismatched with the recipient and contained a median cryopreserved cell dose of 3.7x10(7) (range, 1.6x10(7)-6.0x10(7)) nucleated cells per kilogram of recipient body weight (NC/kg). Graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was cyclosporin A to day 180 plus mycophenolate mofetil to day 30. The cumulative incidence of sustained donor engraftment was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56%-96%) for Bu/Flu/TBI recipients and 94% (95% CI, 84%100%) for Cy/Flu/TBI recipients. The median day of neutrophil recovery (at least 0.5x10(9)/L) for engrafting Bu/Flu/TBI recipients was 26 days (range, 12-30 days) and for Cy/Flu/TBI recipients was 9.5 days (range, 5-28 days). Incidence of grades III-IV acute GVHD was 9% (95% CI, 1%-17%), and survival at 1 year was 39% (95% Cl, 23%-56%). These data demonstrate that 0-2 antigen mismatched UCB is sufficient to engraft most adults after reduced-intensity conditioning and is associated with a low incidence of severe acute 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