4.6 Review

Role of donor lymphocyte infusions in relapsed hematological malignancies after stem cell transplantation revisited

期刊

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 528-538

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.03.004

关键词

Donor lymphocyte infusion; Donor lymphocyte transfusion; Immunotherapy; Graft vs. leukemia; Graft vs. host disease; Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; T cells

类别

资金

  1. NIH [R01 CA092344]
  2. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society [60660-5 LLS, 6092-09 LLS]
  3. Susan G. Komen Foundation [BCTR0707125]
  4. Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Treatment of relapsed hematological malignancies after an allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplant (SCT) is challenging. Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) from the stem cell donor is an attractive clinical option to salvage this group of patients. Methods: We reviewed the important studies looking at donor lymphocyte infusion as a therapy for the treatment of hematological disorders that are either refractory to or have relapsed after allogeneic SCT. Results: The response to DLI is dependent upon type of disease, dose of infused lymphocytes, and the development of graft vs. host disease (GvHD). The best response rates are seen in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) followed by patients with lymphomas, multiple myeloma and acute leukemias, respectively. The responses in patients with CML are durable whereas durable responses in other diseases are rare. Conclusions: Given the development of new drugs to treat some hematological diseases, DLI has taken a backseat. New modalities to target the infused cells to the tumor and new approaches to reduce GvHD that will augment the graft vs. leukemia/lymphoma (GvL) effect and decrease the injury to normal host tissues need to be developed. Understanding the factors and mechanisms that differentiate the GvL effect from GvHD will help in the development of newer treatment modalities. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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