Dose-escalated donor lymphocyte infusions following reduced intensity transplantation: Toxicity, chimerism, and disease responses

194Citations
Citations of this article
61Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Data on the application of donor lymphocyte infusions (DLIs) following reduced-intensity transplantation (RIT) remain limited. Persistence of host antigen-presenting cells might increase the efficacy or toxicity of cellular immunotherapies. We report the results of dose-escalating DLIs in 46 patients undergoing RIT, who received a total of 109 infusions to treat mixed chimerism or residual or progressive disease. Diagnoses were myeloma (n = 19), Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 13), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 10), and other (n = 4). Thirty-two had an HLA matched family donor and 14 an unrelated donor. Grades II to IV graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) occurred in 5 sibling and 7 unrelated donor recipients. GVHD was more common (P = .002), occurred at lower T-cell doses, and was more severe in the unrelated donor cohort. Conversion from mixed to multilineage full donor chimerism occurred in 30 of 35 evaluable patients. Presence of mixed chimerism in the granulocyte lineage at the time of DLI did not predict for chimerism response or GVHD. Disease responses occurred in 63% of patients with myeloma and 70% of those with Hodgkin lymphoma and were not predicted by changes in chimerism. These data support the presence of clinically relevant graft-versus-Hodgkin activity and indicate that DLI may be associated with a significantly increased toxicity in unrelated compared to sibling donor transplant recipients receiving identical treatment protocols. © 2004 by The American Society of Hematology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Peggs, K. S., Thomson, K., Hart, D. P., Geary, J., Morris, E. C., Yong, K., … Mackinnon, S. (2004). Dose-escalated donor lymphocyte infusions following reduced intensity transplantation: Toxicity, chimerism, and disease responses. Blood, 103(4), 1548–1556. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2003-05-1513

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