4.2 Article

Classification of HLA-matching for retrospective analysis of unrelated donor transplantation: Revised definitions to predict survival

期刊

BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 748-758

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.04.003

关键词

HLA matching; unrelated donor transplantation

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [U24 CA076518, U24 CA076518-10] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The best unrelated donors (URD) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are alleles matched at HLA-A, -B, -C, and DRB1. Earlier studies mostly used incomplete or lower resolution HLA typing for analysis of transplant outcome. To understand the impact of incomplete HLA characterization, we analyzed 14,797 URD HCT (1995-2006) using multivariable regression modeling adjusting for factors affecting survival. Of 21 matching cohorts, we identified 3 groups with significantly different outcomes. Well-matched cases had either no identified HLA mismatch and informative data at 4 loci or allele matching at HLA-A, -B, and -DRB1 (n = 7477, 50% of the population). Partially matched pairs had a defined, single-locus mismatch and/or missing HLA data (n = 4962, 34%). Mismatched cases had 2 allele or antigen mismatches (n = 2358, 16%). Multivariate adjusted 5-year survival estimates were: well-matched: 54.1 (95% confidence interval), 52.9-55.4), partially matched: 43.7 (42.3-45.2), and mismatched: 33.4 (32.5-36.5), P < .001. A better matched donor yielded 10%-11% better 5-year survival. Importantly, intermediate resolution -A, -B, and -DRB1 alleles matched 6/6 antigen matched HCT had survival outcomes within the partially matched cohort. We suggest that these proposed IIIA subgroupings be used when complete H-LA typing is not available. This improved categorization of HLA matching status allows adjustment for donor-recipient HILA compatibility, and can standardize interpretations of prior URD HCT experience. (C) 2008 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

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

4.2
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