Jeff Chang1, Scott S Graves, Tiffany Butts-Miwongtum, George E Sale, Rainer Storb, David Woodbridge Mathes. 1. 1 Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. 2 Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3 Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4 Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 5 Department of Surgery, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO. 6 Plastic Surgery Service, VA Eastern Colorado Care System, Denver, CO.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of safe and reliable protocols for the transplantation of the face and hands may be accomplished with animal modeling of transplantation of vascularized composite allografts (VCA). Previously, we demonstrated that tolerance to a VCA could be achieved after canine recipients were simultaneously given marrow from a dog leukocyte antigen-identical donor. In the present study, we extend those findings across a dog leukocyte antigen mismatched barrier. METHODS: Eight recipient dogs received total body irradiation (4.5 cGy), hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), either marrow (n = 4) or granulocyte-colony stimulating factor mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (n = 4), and a VCA transplant from the HCT donor. Post grafting immunosuppression consisted of mycophenolate mofetil (28 days) and cyclosporine (35 days). RESULTS: In 4 dogs receiving bone marrow, 1 accepted both its marrow transplant and demonstrated long-term tolerance to the donor VCA (>52 weeks). Three dogs rejected both their marrow transplants and VCA at 5 to 7 weeks posttransplant. Dogs receiving mobilized stem cells all accepted their stem cell transplant and became tolerant to the VCA. However, 3 dogs developed graft-versus-host disease, whereas 1 dog rejected its stem cell graft by week 15 but exhibited long-term tolerance toward its VCA (>90 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that simultaneous transplantation of mobilized stem cells and a VCA is feasible and leads to tolerance toward the VCA in a haploidentical setting. However, there is a higher rate of donor stem cell engraftment compared with marrow HCT and an increase in the incidence of graft-versus-host disease.
BACKGROUND: The development of safe and reliable protocols for the transplantation of the face and hands may be accomplished with animal modeling of transplantation of vascularized composite allografts (VCA). Previously, we demonstrated that tolerance to a VCA could be achieved after canine recipients were simultaneously given marrow from a dog leukocyte antigen-identical donor. In the present study, we extend those findings across a dog leukocyte antigen mismatched barrier. METHODS: Eight recipient dogs received total body irradiation (4.5 cGy), hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), either marrow (n = 4) or granulocyte-colony stimulating factor mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (n = 4), and a VCA transplant from the HCT donor. Post grafting immunosuppression consisted of mycophenolate mofetil (28 days) and cyclosporine (35 days). RESULTS: In 4 dogs receiving bone marrow, 1 accepted both its marrow transplant and demonstrated long-term tolerance to the donor VCA (>52 weeks). Three dogs rejected both their marrow transplants and VCA at 5 to 7 weeks posttransplant. Dogs receiving mobilized stem cells all accepted their stem cell transplant and became tolerant to the VCA. However, 3 dogs developed graft-versus-host disease, whereas 1 dog rejected its stem cell graft by week 15 but exhibited long-term tolerance toward its VCA (>90 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that simultaneous transplantation of mobilized stem cells and a VCA is feasible and leads to tolerance toward the VCA in a haploidentical setting. However, there is a higher rate of donor stem cell engraftment compared with marrow HCT and an increase in the incidence of graft-versus-host disease.
Authors: Monica S Thakar; Erlinda B Santos; Simon Fricker; Gary Bridger; Rainer Storb; Brenda M Sandmaier Journal: Blood Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: D A Leonard; J M Kurtz; C Mallard; A Albritton; R Duran-Struuck; E A Farkash; R Crepeau; A Matar; B M Horner; M A Randolph; D H Sachs; C A Huang; C L Cetrulo Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: K Theilgaard-Mönch; K Raaschou-Jensen; H Andersen; C A Russell; L Vindeløv; N Jacobsen; E Dickmeiss Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Amir H Dorafshar; Branko Bojovic; Michael R Christy; Daniel E Borsuk; Nicholas T Iliff; Emile N Brown; Cynthia K Shaffer; T Nicole Kelley; Debra L Kukuruga; Rolf N Barth; Stephen T Bartlett; Eduardo D Rodriguez Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Tatsuo Kawai; A Benedict Cosimi; Thomas R Spitzer; Nina Tolkoff-Rubin; Manikkam Suthanthiran; Susan L Saidman; Juanita Shaffer; Frederic I Preffer; Ruchuang Ding; Vijay Sharma; Jay A Fishman; Bimalangshu Dey; Dicken S C Ko; Martin Hertl; Nelson B Goes; Waichi Wong; Winfred W Williams; Robert B Colvin; Megan Sykes; David H Sachs Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Scott S Graves; David W Mathes; George E Georges; Christian S Kuhr; Jeff Chang; Tiffany M Butts; Rainer Storb Journal: Transplantation Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Christian Andreas Radu; Sebastian Fischer; Yannick Diehm; Otto Hetzel; Florian Neubrech; Laura Dittmar; Christian Kleist; Martha Maria Gebhard; Peter Terness; Ulrich Kneser; Jurij Kiefer Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-08-19 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Abraham J Matar; Rebecca L Crepeau; Gerhard S Mundinger; Curtis L Cetrulo; Radbeh Torabi Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 7.561