Table 2

Immunologic outcome according to donor and conditioning

DonorConditioning,1st HCTNo. of patientsNo. of patients surviving >2 yNo. of patients surviving with
CD3+ T cells, >1000/µLCD4+ T cells, >600/µLMyeloid chimerismNo IVIG substitution
HLA identical, n = 42 None 35 30 (85%) 15 (50%) 12 (42%) 6 (20%)* 21 (56%) 
 cyclo 
 bu + cyclo 
HLA haploidentical, n = 82 None 17 4 
 cyclo or flud 15 4 
 bu + cyclo/flud 46 31 (67%) 29 (93%) 26 (83%) 24 (77%) 24 (77%) 
 Other 
MUD, n = 8 None     
 bu + cyclo 
Other related,§ n = 13 None 13 
DonorConditioning,1st HCTNo. of patientsNo. of patients surviving >2 yNo. of patients surviving with
CD3+ T cells, >1000/µLCD4+ T cells, >600/µLMyeloid chimerismNo IVIG substitution
HLA identical, n = 42 None 35 30 (85%) 15 (50%) 12 (42%) 6 (20%)* 21 (56%) 
 cyclo 
 bu + cyclo 
HLA haploidentical, n = 82 None 17 4 
 cyclo or flud 15 4 
 bu + cyclo/flud 46 31 (67%) 29 (93%) 26 (83%) 24 (77%) 24 (77%) 
 Other 
MUD, n = 8 None     
 bu + cyclo 
Other related,§ n = 13 None 13 

bu, busulfan; cyclo, cyclophosphamide; flud, fludarabine.

*

Not evaluated in 4 of 30 patients.

Eighteen patients experienced graft failures after HCT without or with only immunosuppressive conditioning and underwent repeat HCT. Two of 7 survive after immunosuppressive conditioning and 7 of 11 after myelosuppressive conditioning.

Three patients received treosulfan and 1 patient thiotepa instead of busulfan for myelosuppression.

§

One antigen mismatched, no T-cell depletion.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal