4.8 Article

Indirect evidence that maternal microchimerism in cord blood mediates a graft-versus-leukemia effect in cord blood transplantation

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1119541109

关键词

cord blood stem cell transplantation; birth order

资金

  1. US Public Health Service
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  3. Starr Foundation
  4. Macropa Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During pregnancy women can develop B- and T-cell immunity against the inherited paternal antigens (IPAs) of the fetus, such as HLA, peptides of minor histocompatibilty antigens, and possibly oncofetal antigens. The biological and pathological role of these pregnancy-induced immunological events is only understood in part. However, anti-IPA immunity in the mother persists for many decades after delivery and may reduce relapse in offspring with leukemia after HLA-haploidentical transplantation of maternal hematopoietic stem cells (HSC). We hypothesized that maternal anti-IPA immune elements cross the placenta and might confer a potent graft-versus-leukemia effect when cord blood (CB) is used in unrelated HSC transplantation. In a retrospective study of single-unit CB recipients with all grafts provided by the New York Blood Center, we show that patients with acute myeloid or lymphoblastic leukemia (n = 845) who shared one or more HLA-A, -B, or -DRB1 antigens with their CB donor's IPAs had a significant decrease in leukemic relapse posttransplantation [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.38, P < 0.001] compared with those that did not. Remarkably, relapse reduction in patients receiving CB with one HLA mismatch (HR = 0.15, P < 0.001) was not associated with an increased risk of severe acute graft-versus-host disease (HR = 1.43, P = 0.730). Our findings may explain the unexpected low relapse rate after CB transplantation, open new avenues in the study of leukemic relapse after HSC transplantation (possibly of malignancies in general), and have practical implications for CB unit selection.

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

4.8
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