← 返回前沿论文

双份脐血与单倍体供者移植在成人急性淋巴细胞白血病患者中的长期结局比较:关于 KIR 配体错配

英文原题:Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Double Unit Cord Blood Versus Haploidentical Donor Transplantation in Adult Patients With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Regarding KIR-Ligand Mismatch.

查看英文原题

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Double Unit Cord Blood Versus Haploidentical Donor Transplantation in Adult Patients With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Regarding KIR-Ligand Mismatch.

PubMed 2024/11/19(内容时间) Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk Q1 · IF 4.1(JCR 2025)

分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。

研究概要

我们的研究支持 DCBT 在 HIDT 主导时代的有用性,并提示了改善 DCBT 生存结局的潜在途径。

中文摘要

对于缺乏人白细胞抗原(HLA)匹配供者的患者,单倍体相合供者移植(HIDT)或脐带血移植(CBT)是常见替代选择。除供者来源外,HLA不匹配情况下NK细胞异体反应性也可能影响替代供者造血细胞移植(HCT)结局,但评估其对成人急性淋巴细胞白血病(ALL)影响的研究有限。

评估替代供者HCT中供者来源和杀伤细胞免疫球蛋白样受体配体错配(KIRL-MM)对结局的影响,尤其关注成人ALL患者。 研究设计:回顾性比较HIDT(n=47)与双单位脐带血移植(DCBT,n=134)的临床结局。HIDT前采用氟达拉滨和白消安为基础的减低毒性预处理;DCBT前采用全身照射(TBI)为基础的清髓性预处理。使用网络计算工具判定KIR配体。DCBT患者的供者KIR配体组别由植入后占优势的脐血单位决定。

中位随访39.4个月后,DCBT的3年非复发死亡率(NRM)较高(22.8%对9.0%,p=0.038),而HIDT的累积复发发生率(CIR)显著较高(47.9%对18.9%,p<0.001)。估计无病生存期(DFS)相近(DCBT为58.5%,HIDT为44.3%,p=0.106)。在HIDT和DCBT中,移植物抗宿主方向的KIRL-MM均与较低急性移植物抗宿主病(GVHD)发生率相关。但在DCBT亚组中,该方向KIRL-MM与较差DFS相关(37.2%对66.0%,p=0.008),主要源于NRM率特别升高(35.0%对18.4%,p=0.057)。

本研究支持在HIDT占主导的时代继续采用DCBT,并提示了改善DCBT生存结局的潜在方向。

展开英文摘要原文

Haploidentical donor transplantation (HIDT) or cord blood transplantation (CBT) are common alternatives for patients lacking human-leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched donors. In addition to the donor source, NK cell alloreactivity due to HLA-mismatch setting may affect outcomes in alternative-donor hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, a limited number of studies have evaluated their impacts in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

We aimed to assess the effects of donor source and KIRL-MM on outcomes of alternative-donor HCT, with a special focus on adult ALL. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively compared clinical outcomes between HIDT (n=47) and double unit CBT (DCBT) (n=134). Patients received fludarabine and busulfan-based reduced toxicity conditioning before HIDT, and TBI-based myeloablative conditioning before DCBT. KIR ligands were determined using a web-based calculator. For DCBT, donor KIR ligand groups were defined by the dominant CB unit after engraftment.

After a median follow-up of 39.4 months, DCBT showed higher 3-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) (22.8% vs. 9.0%, p=0.038), whereas the cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was significantly higher in HIDT (47.9% vs. 18.9%, p<0.001). Estimated disease-free survival (DFS) was comparable (DCBT 58.5% vs. HIDT 44.3%, p=0.106). GVH direction KIRL-MM showed lower incidence of acute GVHD in both HIDT and DCBT. However, GVH direction KIRL-MM was associated with poorer DFS (37.2% vs. 66.0%, p=0.008) only in the DCBT subgroup, mostly due to specifically higher NRM rate (35.0% vs 18.4%, p=0.057).

Our study supports the usefulness of DCBT in the HIDT-dominant era and suggests potential ways to improve survival outcomes of DCBT.

论文信息

作者
Lee S、Yoon JH、Kwag D、Min GJ、Park SS、Park S、Lee SE、Cho BS
第一作者单位
Department of Hematology, Catholic Hematology Hospital and Leukemia Research Institute, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.South Korea
通讯作者单位
Department of Hematology, Catholic Hematology Hospital and Leukemia Research Institute, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: leeseok@catholic.ac.kr.South Korea
文献类型
对照研究
期刊
Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia2025 Jan
原文标识
PubMed 39643563 · DOI 10.1016/j.clml.2024.11.004