JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Mobilized Peripheral Blood Stem Cells Versus Unstimulated Bone Marrow As a Graft Source for T-Cell-Replete Haploidentical Donor Transplantation Using Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide.

Purpose T-cell-replete HLA-haploidentical donor hematopoietic transplantation using post-transplant cyclophosphamide was originally described using bone marrow (BM). With increasing use of mobilized peripheral blood (PB), we compared transplant outcomes after PB and BM transplants. Patients and Methods A total of 681 patients with hematologic malignancy who underwent transplantation in the United States between 2009 and 2014 received BM (n = 481) or PB (n = 190) grafts. Cox regression models were built to examine differences in transplant outcomes by graft type, adjusting for patient, disease, and transplant characteristics. Results Hematopoietic recovery was similar after transplantation of BM and PB (28-day neutrophil recovery, 88% v 93%, P = .07; 100-day platelet recovery, 88% v 85%, P = .33). Risks of grade 2 to 4 acute (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P < .001) and chronic (HR, 0.35; P < .001) graft-versus-host disease were lower with transplantation of BM compared with PB. There were no significant differences in overall survival by graft type (HR, 0.99; P = .98), with rates of 54% and 57% at 2 years after transplantation of BM and PB, respectively. There were no differences in nonrelapse mortality risks (HR, 0.92; P = .74) but relapse risks were higher after transplantation of BM (HR, 1.49; P = .009). Additional exploration confirmed that the higher relapse risks after transplantation of BM were limited to patients with leukemia (HR, 1.73; P = .002) and not lymphoma (HR, 0.87; P = .64). Conclusion PB and BM grafts are suitable for haploidentical transplantation with the post-transplant cyclophosphamide approach but with differing patterns of treatment failure. Although, to our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive comparison, these findings must be validated in a randomized prospective comparison with adequate follow-up.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app