Graft-versus-host disease after nonmyeloablative versus conventional hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Blood ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 756-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Mielcarek ◽  
Paul J. Martin ◽  
Wendy Leisenring ◽  
Mary E. D. Flowers ◽  
David G. Maloney ◽  
...  

AbstractIt is unknown whether the severity, timing, and quality of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) may be different after nonmyeloablative as compared with myeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Therefore, GVHD incidence, morbidity of skin, liver, and gut, requirements for immunosuppressive therapy, and survival were retrospectively analyzed in 44 patients who underwent nonablative HSCT and 52 who underwent ablative HSCT (median ages, 56 and 54 years, respectively). The nonablative transplantation regimen consisted of low-dose total body irradiation (TBI), preceded in some patients by fludarabine administration and followed in all patients by immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and cyclosporine (CSP). Those who underwent myeloablative HSCT were prepared with different TBI- and non-TBI–containing regimens and received CSP plus methotrexate or MMF for GVHD prophylaxis. The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute GVHD was lower after nonablative transplantation (64% vs 85%; P = .001), but there were no differences in the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD requiring treatment (73% vs 71%; P = .96). Nonablative transplantation was associated with the delayed initiation of steroid treatment for GVHD (0.95 months vs 3.0 months; P < .001) and with the use of fewer systemic immunosuppressants in the first 3 months after transplantation (P ≤ .04). This corresponded to more prevalent skin and more severe gut morbidity 6 to 12 months after nonablative transplantation. Our results show that nonablative HSCT is associated with a syndrome of acute GVHD occurring after day 100 in many patients. This “late-onset acute GVHD” should be taken into consideration in the design of prospective studies comparing GVHD resulting from the two types of transplantation procedures.

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darius Sairafi ◽  
Arwen Stikvoort ◽  
Jens Gertow ◽  
Jonas Mattsson ◽  
Michael Uhlin

Background. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a serious complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We designed a functional assay for assessment of individual risk for acute GVHD.Study Design and Methods. Blood samples were collected from patients and donors before HSCT. Two groups of seven patients each were selected, one in which individuals developed acute GVHD grades II–IV and one in which none showed any clinical signs of GVHD. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) isolated from donors were incubated in mixed lymphocyte cultures (MLCs) with recipient PBMCs. The cells were characterized by flow cytometry before and after MLC.Results. Samples from donors in the GVHD group contained significantly lower frequencies of naïveγδT-cells and T-cells expressing NK-cell markers CD56 and CD94. Donor samples in this group also exhibited lower frequencies of naïve CD95+T-cells compared to controls. After MLC, there were dissimilarities in the CD4/CD8 T-cell ratio and frequency of CD69+T-cells between the two patient groups, with the non-GVHD group showing higher frequencies of CD8+and CD69+T-cells.Conclusion. We conclude that a thorough flow cytometric analysis of donor cells for phenotype and allogeneic reactivity may be of value when assessing pretransplant risk for severe acute GVHD.


2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 44-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaneuza A. M. Funke ◽  
Maria Claudia Rodrigues Moreira ◽  
Afonso Celso Vigorito

ABSTRACT graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is one of the main complications of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, affecting about 50% to 80% of the patients. Acute GVHD and its clinical manifestations are discussed in this article, as well as the new NIH criteria for the diagnosis and classification of chronic GVHD. Therapy for both chronic and acute GVHD is an important field of discussion, as there is no proven superiority for the majority of therapies used after primary treatment has failed. Hence, this review is meant to be a useful consultation tool for hematologists dealing with this complex transplantation procedure complication.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document