不同动员方案对异基因造血干细胞移植临床疗效的影响

目的 探讨异基因造血干细胞移植中不同动员方案的临床效果.方法 回顾性分析71例异基因外周血造血干细胞移植的临床资料,根据供者采用动员剂的不同分为G-CSF动员组(G组,有24例受者)和G-CSF联合GM-CSF动员组(G+M组,有47例受者).比较两组供者的动员效果及移植物细胞成分,观察受者术后造血功能重建的情况和GVHD的发生情况,观察供者应用动员剂后的不良反应.结果 动员4 d后,G组供者的外周血白细胞计数为(49.6±19.5)×109/L,明显高于G+M组供者的(25.4±10.4)×109/L(P＜0.05).两组间CD34+细胞占单个核细胞比例的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),但G+M组CD34+CD38-细胞占CD34+细胞的比例为(37.7±5.7)%,明显高于G组的(31.4±4.5)%(P＜0.05).两组供者经过1～3次采集均能获取足够的CD34+细胞,两组采集的供者淋巴细胞计数及其亚群分布的差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组受者间CD34+细胞、CD34+CD38-细胞及T淋巴细胞亚群输入量的差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).术后所有受者的造血功能均顺利重建.术后对受者进行2～55个月的随访,无论是急性还是慢性GVHD,其发病率和严重程度在两组间的差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).术后共有17例受者死于原发病复发,10例死于GVHD和感染等移植相关并发症,G组和G+M组分别有14例(58.3%)和31例(66.0%)受者存活.在使用动员剂后,供者出现的主要不良反应为骨骼肌酸痛和发热,多发生在用药后36 h,给予解热镇痛药后缓解.结论 单用G-CSF与联合应用G-CSF和M-CSF进行动员的临床效果相当,但后者对CD34+CD38-细胞的选择性较强,而在异基因造血干细胞移植输入较多的CD34+细胞和CD34+CD38-细胞有利于受者造血功能的快速重建.

Comparison between clinical results of peripheral blood stem cell transplantation from HLA-matched sibling donors mobilized with different regimens

Objective To retrospectively review and compare the clinical results of allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (allo-PBSCT) from HLA- matched sibling donors mobilized with different regimens. Methods Seventy-one patients with hematological malignant diseases received allo-PBSCT from HLA-matched sibling donors in our department. Among them, 24 received allografts mobilized with G-CSF (group G), and the remaining (47 cases) were mobilized with G-CSF and GM-CSF (group G+ M). CD34+ subsets and T cell subsets in the allografts were analyzed, and the time of hematopoietic reconstitution and the incidence of graft versus host diseases (GVHD) were compared. The adverse effects on the donors after mobilization were also observed. Results The enough targeted CD34+ cells in all donors were harvested by 1-3 aphereses. Ninety-six h after mobilization, WBC counts of the donors were significantly higher in group G than in group G + M (49. 6± 19. 5) 109/L vs (25.4 ± 10. 4) 109/L, P＜0. 05]. Analysis of the CD34+ subsets showed that the percentage of cells with the CD34+/CD38- phenotype was significantly higher in group G + M than in group G (37. 7 ± 5. 7) % vs (31.4 ± 4. 5) %, P＜0. 05]. There was no significant difference in T cells and subsets of grafts. There was no significant difference in the number of total CD34+ cells and CD34+ CD38- cells, and infusion of T cells between two groups. The days required for the recovery of neutrophils and platelets was inversely correlated with the infused CD34+ and CD34+ /CD38- cell number. There was no significant difference in incidence of acute and chronic GVHD between two recipient groups. Seventeen cases and 10 eases among 71 eases died of relapses of primarydiseases, and complications of transplantation such as severe GVHD and infections respectively.Fourteen cases in group G (58.3 %) and 31 cases in group G+ M (66.0 %) survived. The most common adverse events in the donors were bone pain and fever, which mostly occurred 36 h after mobilization and could be relieved by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Conclusion Two mobilization regimens showed equivalent clinical results. But the combined regimen of G-CSF and GM-CSF demonstrated a significantly greater mobilization of cells with the CD34+/CD38- phenotype.Meanwhile in allogeneic PBSCT, a greater number of total CD34+ cells and CD34+ CD38- cells infused may be associated with faster hematopoietic reconstitution of recipients.