Cargando…
A Retrospective Comparison of DLI and gDLI for Post-Transplant Treatment
Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is used to prevent or treat haematological malignancies relapse after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulated factor primed DLI (gDLI) is derived from frozen aliquots of the peripheral blood stem cell collection...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7408819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32664688 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072204 |
_version_ | 1783567920480124928 |
---|---|
author | Lamure, Sylvain Paul, Franciane Gagez, Anne-Laure Delage, Jérémy Vincent, Laure Fegueux, Nathalie Sirvent, Anne Gehlkopf, Eve Veyrune, Jean Luc Yang, Lu Zhao Kanouni, Tarik Cacheux, Valère Moreaux, Jérôme Bonafoux, Beatrice Cartron, Guillaume De Vos, John Ceballos, Patrice |
author_facet | Lamure, Sylvain Paul, Franciane Gagez, Anne-Laure Delage, Jérémy Vincent, Laure Fegueux, Nathalie Sirvent, Anne Gehlkopf, Eve Veyrune, Jean Luc Yang, Lu Zhao Kanouni, Tarik Cacheux, Valère Moreaux, Jérôme Bonafoux, Beatrice Cartron, Guillaume De Vos, John Ceballos, Patrice |
author_sort | Lamure, Sylvain |
collection | PubMed |
description | Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is used to prevent or treat haematological malignancies relapse after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulated factor primed DLI (gDLI) is derived from frozen aliquots of the peripheral blood stem cell collection. We compared the efficacy and safety of gDLI and classical DLI after allo-SCT. We excluded haploidentical allo-SCT. Initial diseases were acute myeloblastic leukaemia (n = 45), myeloma (n = 38), acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (n = 20), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 10), myelodysplasia (n = 8), Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 8), chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (n = 7), chronic myeloid leukaemia (n = 2) and osteomyelofibrosis (n = 1). Indications for DLI were relapse (n = 96) or pre-emptive treatment (n = 43). Sixty-eight patients had classical DLI and 71 had gDLI. The response rate was 38.2%, the 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 38% (29–48) and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 37% (29–47). Graft versus host disease rate was 46.7% and 10.1% of patients died from toxicity. There were no differences between classical DLI and gDLI in terms of response (p = 0.28), 5-year PFS (p = 0.90), 5-year OS (p. 0.50), GvHD (p = 0.86), treated GvHD (p = 0.81) and cause of mortality (p. 0.14). In conclusion, this study points out no major effectiveness or toxicity of gDLI compared to classical DLI. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7408819 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74088192020-08-13 A Retrospective Comparison of DLI and gDLI for Post-Transplant Treatment Lamure, Sylvain Paul, Franciane Gagez, Anne-Laure Delage, Jérémy Vincent, Laure Fegueux, Nathalie Sirvent, Anne Gehlkopf, Eve Veyrune, Jean Luc Yang, Lu Zhao Kanouni, Tarik Cacheux, Valère Moreaux, Jérôme Bonafoux, Beatrice Cartron, Guillaume De Vos, John Ceballos, Patrice J Clin Med Article Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) is used to prevent or treat haematological malignancies relapse after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulated factor primed DLI (gDLI) is derived from frozen aliquots of the peripheral blood stem cell collection. We compared the efficacy and safety of gDLI and classical DLI after allo-SCT. We excluded haploidentical allo-SCT. Initial diseases were acute myeloblastic leukaemia (n = 45), myeloma (n = 38), acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (n = 20), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 10), myelodysplasia (n = 8), Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 8), chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (n = 7), chronic myeloid leukaemia (n = 2) and osteomyelofibrosis (n = 1). Indications for DLI were relapse (n = 96) or pre-emptive treatment (n = 43). Sixty-eight patients had classical DLI and 71 had gDLI. The response rate was 38.2%, the 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 38% (29–48) and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 37% (29–47). Graft versus host disease rate was 46.7% and 10.1% of patients died from toxicity. There were no differences between classical DLI and gDLI in terms of response (p = 0.28), 5-year PFS (p = 0.90), 5-year OS (p. 0.50), GvHD (p = 0.86), treated GvHD (p = 0.81) and cause of mortality (p. 0.14). In conclusion, this study points out no major effectiveness or toxicity of gDLI compared to classical DLI. MDPI 2020-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7408819/ /pubmed/32664688 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072204 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Lamure, Sylvain Paul, Franciane Gagez, Anne-Laure Delage, Jérémy Vincent, Laure Fegueux, Nathalie Sirvent, Anne Gehlkopf, Eve Veyrune, Jean Luc Yang, Lu Zhao Kanouni, Tarik Cacheux, Valère Moreaux, Jérôme Bonafoux, Beatrice Cartron, Guillaume De Vos, John Ceballos, Patrice A Retrospective Comparison of DLI and gDLI for Post-Transplant Treatment |
title | A Retrospective Comparison of DLI and gDLI for Post-Transplant Treatment |
title_full | A Retrospective Comparison of DLI and gDLI for Post-Transplant Treatment |
title_fullStr | A Retrospective Comparison of DLI and gDLI for Post-Transplant Treatment |
title_full_unstemmed | A Retrospective Comparison of DLI and gDLI for Post-Transplant Treatment |
title_short | A Retrospective Comparison of DLI and gDLI for Post-Transplant Treatment |
title_sort | retrospective comparison of dli and gdli for post-transplant treatment |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7408819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32664688 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072204 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lamuresylvain aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT paulfranciane aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT gagezannelaure aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT delagejeremy aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT vincentlaure aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT fegueuxnathalie aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT sirventanne aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT gehlkopfeve aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT veyrunejeanluc aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT yangluzhao aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT kanounitarik aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT cacheuxvalere aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT moreauxjerome aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT bonafouxbeatrice aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT cartronguillaume aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT devosjohn aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT ceballospatrice aretrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT lamuresylvain retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT paulfranciane retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT gagezannelaure retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT delagejeremy retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT vincentlaure retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT fegueuxnathalie retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT sirventanne retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT gehlkopfeve retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT veyrunejeanluc retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT yangluzhao retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT kanounitarik retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT cacheuxvalere retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT moreauxjerome retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT bonafouxbeatrice retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT cartronguillaume retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT devosjohn retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment AT ceballospatrice retrospectivecomparisonofdliandgdliforposttransplanttreatment |