scholarly journals Effect of ABO Blood Group Incompatibility on the Outcome of Single-Unit Cord Blood Transplantation after Myeloablative Conditioning

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 577-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takaaki Konuma ◽  
Seiko Kato ◽  
Jun Ooi ◽  
Maki Oiwa-Monna ◽  
Yasuhiro Ebihara ◽  
...  
Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2055-2055
Author(s):  
Cheng Siqi ◽  
Baolin Tang ◽  
Xiaoyu Zhu ◽  
Huilan Liu ◽  
Kaidi Song ◽  
...  

Objective In contrast to solid organ transplantation, ABO blood group incompatibility was acceptable in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). However, reports of the effect of donor-recipient ABO incompatibility on long-time survival, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and relapse after allo-HSCT were controversial. Relatively few reports existed on the effects of ABO incompatibility after umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT). The aim of this study was to investigate the role of major ABO incompatibility on RBC transfusion burden, hematologic recovery, GVHD, transplant-related mortality (TRM), relapse, and overall survival (OS) in UCBT for malignant disease. Methods This retrospective study included 587 malignant hematonosis patients who received myeloablative single-unit unrelated donor UCBT at our center between May 2008 and June 2018. Median follow-up time of the patients alive was 40.7 months (range: 12.0-134.6 months). A total of 230 (39.2%) patients received an ABO-identical transplant, and 357 (60.8%) received ABO-mismatched transplants, including 161 (27.4%) minor, 141 (24.0%) major, and 55 (9.4%) bidirectional ABO-incompatible UCBTs. All patients received myeloablative conditioning regimens and cyclosporine A (CsA) combined with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) as a GVHD prophylaxis. Results A comparison of ABO compatibility and incompatibility demonstrated no significant differences (P>0.05) in the cumulative incidence of neutrophil, platelet, and red blood cell engraftment . There was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence of grades Ⅱ to Ⅳ aGVHD (P= .527) and Ⅲ to Ⅳ aGVHD (P= .949) among the 4 groups (Figure A , B). In univariate analysis, ABO blood group incompatibility was not associated with cumulative incidence of 180d TRM (Figure C, P= .602). The overall 3-year survival had no statistically significant differences among the 4 groups (Figure D; P= .384). Further, 11 patients were excluded from the analysis of post-UCBT RBC transfusion burden because of missing data and non-red blood cell engraftment. Of the remaining 576 patients, the median number of RBC transfusions during transplant days 0 to 60 was 4 (range, 0 to 106). There was no significant difference in the transfusion burden among all ABO blood type mismatch groups (Table 1, P = .069). Furthermore, none of the patients developed pure red aplastic anemia (PRCA) after UCBT. Conclusion The results showed that ABO blood group incompatibility had no significant impact on hematologic engraftment, the occurrence of GVHD, and the survival of malignant hemoblastosis. Patients with myeloablative single-unit UCBT may not develop PRCA; Donor-recipient ABO incompatibility may not be the major consideration in the selection of umbilical cord blood. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5837-5837
Author(s):  
Zimin Sun ◽  
Huilan Liu ◽  
Yue Wu ◽  
Changcheng Zheng ◽  
Baolin Tang ◽  
...  

Abstract The superiority and safety of strengthening conditioning regimen for single- unit unrelated cord blood transplantation (sUCBT) in hematological malignancies remain controversial. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 251 hematological malignancies undergoing sUCBT from Apr 2000 to Dec 2014 at Department of hematology in Anhui Provincial Hospital. Out of the 251 patients, 216 received the intensified myeloablative conditioning regimen (IMCR), and 35 received the myeloablative conditioning regimen (MCR). We evaluated the effect of IMCR without using Antithymocyte globulin (ATG) on patient outcomes. The cumulative incidence of myeloid and platelet engraftment of the IMCR group was significantly higher than that in the MCR group (96.98% vs. 82.81%, 85.89% vs. 51.79%, P=0.000 and 0.003, respectively). Corresponding incidences of transplantation-related mortality (TRM) by 180 days in the IMCR group and the MCR group were 19.50% vs. 41.67% (P=0.003), respectively. There were no differences in the incidence of grade II to IV acute GVHD (aGVDH), grade III to IV aGVHD and 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse. Up to Dec. 2015, with a median follow-up of 30 months, the estimated 3-year overall survival and disease- free survival in the IMCR group were both significantly higher than that of the MCR group (64.8% vs. 35.5%, 61.6% vs. 35.5%, P=0.000 and 0.001, respectively). This study is the first to show the superiority of intensified myeloablative regimen to conventional myeloablative regimen.A large-scale prospective study was needed. (A) (B) Figure 1 The cumulative incidence of neutrophil and platelet engraftment of the IMCR group and MCR group. (A)The cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment of the IMCR group was predominantly higher than that in the MCR group(96.98% vs. 82.81%, P=0.000). (B)The cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment of the IMCR group was also higher than that in the MCR group(85.89% vs. 51.79%, P=0.003). Figure 1. The cumulative incidence of neutrophil and platelet engraftment of the IMCR group and MCR group. (A)The cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment of the IMCR group was predominantly higher than that in the MCR group(96.98% vs. 82.81%, P=0.000). (B)The cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment of the IMCR group was also higher than that in the MCR group(85.89% vs. 51.79%, P=0.003). Figure 2 Comparison of the incidence of 3-year OS between the IMCR group and the MCR group.The incidence of 3-year OS of the IMCR group is predominantly higher than that of the MCR group(62.4% vs. 35.5%,P=0.001). Figure 2. Comparison of the incidence of 3-year OS between the IMCR group and the MCR group.The incidence of 3-year OS of the IMCR group is predominantly higher than that of the MCR group(62.4% vs. 35.5%,P=0.001). Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2548-2548
Author(s):  
Atsushi Wake ◽  
Shunro Kai ◽  
Masaya Okada ◽  
Koji Kato ◽  
Naoyuki Uchida ◽  
...  

Abstract INTRODUCITON: We reported the outcomes of double-unit cord blood transplantation (dCBT) after myeloablative conditioning performed in a prospective multicenter phase II study (C-SHOT0507) (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 19, 2013: 812-819). However, the benefit of using double unit compared to single unit was not clearly shown. We performed matched control analysis to compare dCBT and single-unit CBT (sCBT), using C-SHOT0507 data of dCBT and registry data of sCBT. METHODS: Between Apr.2006 and Jan.2010, 61 cases of dCBT in C-SHOT0507 phase II clinical study and 932 cases of sCBT were performed in Japan. Because all cases of dCBT perfomed by TBI12Gy containing myeloablative conditioning (CA/Cy/TBI +/- G-CSF for myeloid and Cy/TBI for lymphoid) and uniform GVHD prophylaxis (CSA/MTX), we excluded reduced intensity conditioning and myeloablative conditioning without TBI 12 Gy from the cases of sCBT. Finally 307 sCBT patients who had hematological malignancies (AML170, ALL80, MDS24, CML14 and ML20) were extracted. All the sCBT recipients received uniform preconditioning described above and same GVHD prophylaxis (CSA/MTX), selected as a matched control cohort of dCBT C-SHOT0507 study. All statistical analyses were performed using EZR (Kanda Y, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University), a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, version 2.13.0). RESULTS: Median observation period of survivors was 1431 (106-2315) days post-transplant. Backgrounds of dCBT group and matched-control sCBT group were comparable except gender: (dCBT:M/F = 53 /8 versus sCBT:M/F = 154/153). Median age were 37 (10-54) in dCBT and 40 (14-54) in sCBT. Disease risk included standard 27, advanced 34 cases in dCBT, and standard 142, advanced 165 cases in sCBT. sCBT were grouped according to infused TNC number; 148 cases of low TNC (<2.5x107/kg) group (lowTNC) including 35 cases of <2.0x107/kg, and 159 cases of high TNC (>=2.5x107/kg) group (highTNC). Cumulative incidence (C.I.) of neutrophil engraftment were 87.2% (69.5-95.0) in dCBT, 84.7% (76.2-90.3) in sCBT of low TNC and 86.8% (79.3-91.7) in those of high TNC (n.s.) [Figure] and median days of engraftment were 25, 23, 22 days, respectively. 3yEFS were 44.3% (31.8-56.7), 41.6% (33.5-49.7), 44.0% (36.1-51.9) [Figure], and 3yOS were 52.3% (39.7-64.8), 48.7% (40.5-56.9), 51.0%(43.1-59.0), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in both of them. C.I. of NRM were 24.1% (13.9-35.7), 31.0% (22.0-40.3), 40.0% (18.0-61.3), acute GVHDII-IV were 30.8% (18.2-44.4), 41.9% (33.1-50.4), 54.8% (45.5-63.1), acute GVHDIII-IV were 10.8% (3.2-23.6), 12.7% (6.8-20.6), 19.0% (11.4-28.1), chronic GVHD were 31.6% (19.8-44.1), 41.4% (32.6-50.0), 33.8% (26.2-41.6), and relapse incidences were 24.6% (14.6-36.1), 24.5% (17.7-31.8), 26.3% (19.6-33.5), respectively. All parameters assessed showed no significant differences between dCBT, sCBT, sCBT of low TNC and high TNC, except C.I of acute GVHDII-IV and NRM. In multivariate analysis, disease risk was an only significant factor affected on EFS (HR0.58; 95%CI: 0.400-0.833, P=0.003). DISCUSSION: Although this is a retrospective analysis, double-unit use for CBT showed no statistically significant impact on engraftment rate and transplant outcomes compared to single-unit use of CBT even in patients of TNC number lower than 2.5x107/kg after myeloablative conditioning in Japan. Since more than 90% of the transplant candidates can find single CB unit >2x107/kg TNC, advantage of adding another CB unit may be quite limited in Japan both scientifically and financially, until meaningful benefit is demonstrated by randomized phase III study such as BMT-CTN 0501. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document