David Nachbaur1, Johannes Clausen, Brigitte Kircher. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria. david.nachbaur@uibk.ac.at
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite effective preemptive and prophylactic therapeutic strategies, cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity of either recipient and/or donor still remains an important parameter for outcome even after reduced-intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Whether CMV seropositivity of the donor might have an impact on leukemic relapse is unknown. PATIENTS: Between June 1999 and February 2004 48 patients ineligible for conventional allotransplantation underwent reduced-intensity transplants at our institution. Twenty-seven (56%) patients had a CMV-seropositive donor. RESULTS: While donor CMV seropositivity had no effect on overall survival, having a CMV-seropositive donor was associated with a significantly lower risk for relapse (20% vs. 52%, P = 0.02). The beneficial effect of a CMV-seropositive donor, however, was offset by a higher transplant-related mortality (42% vs. 19% in patients with a CMV-seronegative donor, P = 0.2). Donor CMV serostatus had no effect on the incidence of CMV infection/disease, and acute or chronic graft-vs.-host disease. Overall, 27 patients died during the observation period. Causes of death in patients with a CMV-seropositive donor were primarily transplant-related (11 vs. 4 in patients with CMV-seronegative donors), whereas leukemic relapse was the leading cause of death in patients with a CMV-seronegative donor (8 vs. 4 in patients with a CMV-seropositive donor, P = 0.038, chi-squared test). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed risk category by the underlying disease and donor CMV seropositivity to be significant predictors of leukemic relapse following reduced-intensity transplants. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest a possible role of donor CMV serostatus on the risk of relapse following reduced-intensity allogeneic SCT.
OBJECTIVES: Despite effective preemptive and prophylactic therapeutic strategies, cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity of either recipient and/or donor still remains an important parameter for outcome even after reduced-intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Whether CMV seropositivity of the donor might have an impact on leukemic relapse is unknown. PATIENTS: Between June 1999 and February 2004 48 patients ineligible for conventional allotransplantation underwent reduced-intensity transplants at our institution. Twenty-seven (56%) patients had a CMV-seropositive donor. RESULTS: While donor CMV seropositivity had no effect on overall survival, having a CMV-seropositive donor was associated with a significantly lower risk for relapse (20% vs. 52%, P = 0.02). The beneficial effect of a CMV-seropositive donor, however, was offset by a higher transplant-related mortality (42% vs. 19% in patients with a CMV-seronegative donor, P = 0.2). Donor CMV serostatus had no effect on the incidence of CMV infection/disease, and acute or chronic graft-vs.-host disease. Overall, 27 patients died during the observation period. Causes of death in patients with a CMV-seropositive donor were primarily transplant-related (11 vs. 4 in patients with CMV-seronegative donors), whereas leukemic relapse was the leading cause of death in patients with a CMV-seronegative donor (8 vs. 4 in patients with a CMV-seropositive donor, P = 0.038, chi-squared test). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed risk category by the underlying disease and donor CMV seropositivity to be significant predictors of leukemic relapse following reduced-intensity transplants. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest a possible role of donor CMV serostatus on the risk of relapse following reduced-intensity allogeneic SCT.
Authors: Christopher G Kanakry; Hua-Ling Tsai; Javier Bolaños-Meade; B Douglas Smith; Ivana Gojo; Jennifer A Kanakry; Yvette L Kasamon; Douglas E Gladstone; William Matsui; Ivan Borrello; Carol Ann Huff; Lode J Swinnen; Jonathan D Powell; Keith W Pratz; Amy E DeZern; Margaret M Showel; Michael A McDevitt; Robert A Brodsky; Mark J Levis; Richard F Ambinder; Ephraim J Fuchs; Gary L Rosner; Richard J Jones; Leo Luznik Journal: Blood Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Margaret L Green; Wendy M Leisenring; Hu Xie; Roland B Walter; Marco Mielcarek; Brenda M Sandmaier; Stanley R Riddell; Michael Boeckh Journal: Blood Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Z Al-Kadhimi; Z Gul; M Abidi; L G Lum; A Deol; W Chen; H Jang; C Ozust; A Langston; E Waller; J Uberti Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: J Clausen; D Wolf; A L Petzer; E Gunsilius; P Schumacher; B Kircher; G Gastl; D Nachbaur Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jill C Beck; John E Wagner; Todd E DeFor; Claudio G Brunstein; Mark R Schleiss; Jo-Anne Young; Daniel H Weisdorf; Sarah Cooley; Jeffrey S Miller; Michael R Verneris Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Carolyn E Behrendt; Joseph Rosenthal; Ellen Bolotin; Ryotaro Nakamura; John Zaia; Stephen J Forman Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: A B Bigley; K Rezvani; N Shah; T Sekine; N Balneger; M Pistillo; N Agha; H Kunz; D P O'Connor; C M Bollard; R J Simpson Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.330