4.7 Article

HLA-mismatched unrelated donors are a viable alternate graft source for allogeneic transplantation following alemtuzumab-based reduced-intensity conditioning

期刊

BLOOD
卷 115, 期 25, 页码 5147-5153

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-01-265413

关键词

-

资金

  1. Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research (London)
  2. Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre
  3. Royal Free Hospital, London
  4. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10370] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch after reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (RIT) using unrelated donors (UD) is unclear, and may be modulated by T-cell depletion. We therefore examined outcomes of 157 consecutive patients undergoing RIT after uniform conditioning with fludarabine, melphalan, and alemtuzumab (FMC). Donors were 10/10 HLA-matched (MUDs, n = 107) and 6 to 9/10 HLA-matched (MMUDs, n = 50), with no significant differences in baseline characteristics other than increased cytomegalovirus seropositivity in MMUDs. Rates of durable engraftment were high. Graft failure rates (persistent cytopenias with donor chimerism) were similar (8% vs 3%, P = .21), though rejection (recipient chimerism) was more frequent in MMUDs (8% vs 0%, P < .01). There were no significant differences between donors in the incidences of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD; 20% vs 22% grade 2-4, respectively, P = .83), chronic extensive GVHD (3-year cumulative incidence [CI] 23% vs 24%, P = .56), or treatment-related mortality (1-year CI 27% vs 27%, P = .96). Furthermore, there was no difference in 3-year overall survival (OS; 53% vs 49%, P = .44). Mismatch occurred at the antigenic level in 40 cases. The outcome in these cases did not differ significantly from the rest of the cohort. We conclude that RIT using HLA-mismatched grafts is a viable option using FMC conditioning. (Blood. 2010;115(25):5147-5153)

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