Long-term follow-up and factors influencing outcomes after related HLA-identical cord blood transplantation for patients with malignancies: An analysis on behalf of Eurocord-EBMT

39Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We analyzed risk factors influencing outcomes after related (R) human leukocyte antigen-identical cord blood transplantation (CBT) for 147 patients with malignancies reported to Eurocord-European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. CBT has been performed since 1990; median follow-up was 6.7 years. Median patient age was 5 years. Acute leukemia was the most frequent diagnosis (74%). At CBT, 40 patients had early, 70 intermediate, and 37 advanced disease. CB grafts contained a median of 4.1 × 107/kg total nucleated cells (TNCs) after thawing. The cumulative incidence (CI) of neutrophil recovery was 90% at day +60. CIs of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) were 12% and 10% at 2 years, respectively. At 5 years, CIs of nonrelapse mortality and relapse were 9% and 47%, respectively; the probability of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival were 44% and 55%, respectively. Among other factors, higher TNCs infused was associated with rapid neutrophil recovery and improved DFS. The use of methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis decreased the CI of engraftment. Patients without advanced disease had improved DFS. These results support banking and use of CB units for RCBT. Cell dose, GVHD prophylaxis not including methotrexate, and disease status are important factors for outcomes after RCBT. © 2010 by The American Society of Hematology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Herr, A. L., Kabbara, N., Bonfim, C. M. S., Teira, P., Locatelli, F., Tiedemann, K., … Rocha, V. (2010). Long-term follow-up and factors influencing outcomes after related HLA-identical cord blood transplantation for patients with malignancies: An analysis on behalf of Eurocord-EBMT. Blood, 116(11), 1849–1856. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-02-271692

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free