4.2 Article

Peripheral Blood versus Bone Marrow from Unrelated Donors: Bone Marrow Allografts Have Improved Long-Term Overall and Graft-versus-Host Disease-Free, Relapse-Free Survival

Journal

BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 270-278

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.09.004

Keywords

bone marrow; peripheral blood; unrelated donor hematopoietic; cell transplant

Funding

  1. Public Health Service from National Cancer Institute (NCI) [5U24CA076518]
  2. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
  3. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  4. NHLBI [4U10HL069294]
  5. NCI
  6. Health Resources and Services Administration [HHSH250201200016C]
  7. Office of Naval Research [N00014-17-1-2388, N0014-17-1-2850]
  8. Actinium Pharmaceuticals
  9. Amgen
  10. Amneal Biosciences
  11. Angiocrine Bioscience
  12. Astellas Pharma US
  13. Atara Biotherapeutics
  14. Be the Match Foundation
  15. bluebird bio
  16. Bristol Myers Squibb Oncology
  17. Celgene
  18. Cerus
  19. Chimerix
  20. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
  21. Gamida Cell
  22. Gilead Sciences
  23. HistoGenetics
  24. Immucor
  25. Incyte
  26. Janssen Scientific Affairs
  27. Jazz Pharmaceuticals
  28. Juno Therapeutics
  29. Karyopharm Therapeutics
  30. Kite Pharma
  31. Medac
  32. MedImmune
  33. Medical College of Wisconsin
  34. Mediware
  35. Merck Co
  36. Mesoblast
  37. MesoScale Diagnostics
  38. Millennium, the Takeda Oncology Company
  39. Miltenyi Biotec
  40. National Marrow Donor Program
  41. Neovii Biotech NA
  42. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  43. Otsuka Pharmaceuticals
  44. PCORI
  45. Pfizer
  46. Pharmacyclics
  47. PIRCHE
  48. Sanofi Genzyme
  49. Seattle Genetics
  50. Shire
  51. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals
  52. St. Baldrick's Foundation
  53. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals
  54. Swedish Orphan Biovitrum
  55. Takeda Oncology
  56. Telomere Diagnostics
  57. University of Minnesota
  58. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIACP010190] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) from unrelated donors can serve as a graft source for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Currently, PB is most commonly used in roughly 80% of adult recipients. Determining the long-term impact of graft source on outcomes would inform this decision. Data collected by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research from 5200 adult recipients of a first HCT from an 8/8 or 7/8 HLA antigen-matched unrelated donor for treatment of acute leukemia, chronic myelogenous leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome between 2001 and 2011 were analyzed to determine the impact of graft source on graft-versus -host disease (GVHD) relapse-free survival (GRFS), defined as freedom from grade III/IV acute GVHD, chronic GVHD requiring immunosuppressive therapy, relapse, and death, and overall survival. GRFS at 2 years was superior in BM recipients compared with PB recipients (16%; 95% confidence interval [Cl], 14% to 18% versus 10%; 95% CI, 8% to 11%; P <.0001) in the 8/8 HLA-matched cohort and 7/8 HLA-matched cohort (11%; 95% Cl, 8% to 14% versus 5%; 95% Cl, 4% to 7%; P=.001). With 8/8 HLA-matched unrelated donors, overall survival at 5 years was superior in recipients of BM (43%; 95% Cl, 40% to 46% versus 38%; 95% Cl, 36% to 40%; P =.014). The inferior 5-year survival in the PB cohort was attributable to a higher frequency of deaths while in remission compared with the BM cohort. For recipients of 7/8 HLA-matched grafts, survival at 5 years was similar in BM recipients and PB recipients (32% versus 29%; P=.329). BM grafts are associated with improved long-term GRFS and overall survival in recipients of matched unrelated donor HCT and should be considered the unrelated allograft of choice, when available, for adults with acute leukemia, chronic myelogenous leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndrome. (C) 2018 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available