Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Immune Reconstitution

Immune reconstitution following reduced-intensity transplantation with cladribine, busulfan, and antithymocyte globulin: serial comparison with conventional myeloablative transplantation

Bone Marrow Transplantation volume 32, pages 601–608 (2003)Cite this article

Summary:

The primary object of the conditioning regimen for allogeneic reduced-intensity stem cell transplantation (RIST) is immunosuppression to achieve stable engraftment of donor cells, rather than bone marrow ablation. Therefore, immune reconstitution after RIST might be different from that after conventional stem cell transplantation (CST). In this study, 22 patients underwent RIST and 28 underwent CST. The RIST regimen consisted of cladribine (2-CdA; 0.11 mg/kg/day for 6 days), BU (4 mg/kg/day for 2 days), and rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG; 2.5 mg/kg/day for 2–4 days). The CST group received either the BU (4 mg/kg/day × 4 days)/CY (60 mg/kg/day × 2 days) (n=13) or CY (60 mg/kg/day × 2 days)/TBI (4 Gy/day × 3 days) regimen (n=15). All patients underwent transplantation with G-CSF-mobilized blood stem cells. Engraftment speed after RIST was fast and seven of 22 patients did not require platelet transfusion. We noted that the numbers of CD4+, CD4+CD45RA+, and CD4+CD45RO+ T cells after transplant in the RIST group were significantly lower than those in the CST group (P=0.0001 for both the comparisons). However, the reconstitution of CD20+ B cells was faster in the RIST group (P=0.0001). The response of T cells to PHA stimulation was lower in the RIST group (P=0.0001 on day 30 and P=0.02 on day 90). Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in the incidence of bacterial, fungal, or viral infections between the two groups. We concluded that our RIST regimen might delay laboratory-evaluated T-cell immune reconstitution compared to CST; however, the observed setbacks did not directly translate into clinically significant increases in infectious episodes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ottinger HD, Beelen DW, Scheulen B et al. Improved immune reconstitution after allotransplantation of peripheral blood stem cells instead of bone marrow. Blood 1996; 88: 2775–2779.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Champlin RE, Schmitz N, Horowitz MM et al. Blood stem cells compared with bone marrow as a source of hematopoietic cells for allogeneic transplantation. Blood 2000; 95: 3702–3709.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Stork J, Dawson MA, Storer B et al. Immune reconstitution after allogeneic marrow transplantation compared with blood stem cell transplantation. Blood 2001; 97: 3380–3389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wagner JE, Broxmeyer HE, Byrd RL et al. Transplantation of umbilical cord blood after myeloablative therapy: analysis of engraftment. Blood 1992; 79: 1874–1881.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Small TN, Papadopoulos EB, Boulad F et al. Comparison of immune reconstitution after unrelated and related T-cell-depleted bone marrow transplantation: effect of patient's age and donor leukocyte infusions. Blood 1999; 93: 467–480.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Behringer D, Bertz H, Schmoor C et al. Quantitative lymphocyte subset reconstitution after allogeneic hematopoietic transplantation from matched related donors with CD34+ selected PBPC grafts, unselected PBPC grafts or BM grafts. Bone Marrow Transplant 1999; 24: 295–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Champlin R, Khouri I, Shimoni A et al. Harnessing graft-versus-malignancy: non myeloablative preparative regimens for allogeneic haematopoietic transplantation, and an evolving strategy for adoptive immuno therapy. Br J Haematol 2000; 111: 18–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Childs R, Chernoff A, Contentin N et al. Regression of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma after nonmyeloablative allogeneic peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 750–758.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Saito T, Kanda Y, Kami M et al. Therapeutic potential of a reduced-intensity preparative regimen for allogeneic transplantation with cladribine, busulfan and anti-thymocyte globulin against advanced/refractory acute leukemia/lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8: 1014–1020.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ziegler SF, Ramsdell F, Alderson MR et al. The activation antigen CD69. Stem Cells 1994; 12: 456–465.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kook H, Goldman F, Padley D et al. Reconstitution of immune system after unrelated or partially matched T-cell-depleted bone marrow transplantation in children: immunophenotypic analysis and factors affecting the speed. Blood 1996; 88: 1087–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Amrolia P, Gaspar HB, Hassan A et al. Nonmyeloablative stem cell transplantation for congenital immunodeficiencies. Blood 2000; 96: 1239–1246.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Morecki S, Gelfand A, Nagler A et al. Immune reconstitution following stem cell transplantation in recipients conditioned by low-intensity vs myeloablative regimen. Bone Marrow Transplant 2001; 28: 243–249.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Finke J, Bertz H, Schmoor C et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation from unrelated donors using in vivo anti-T-cell globulin. Br J Haematol 2000; 111: 303–313.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Naparstek E, Delukina M, Or R et al. Engraftment of marrow allografts treated with Campath-1 monoclonal antibodies. Exp Hematol 1999; 27: 1210–1218.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Slavin S, Nagler A, Naparstek E et al. Nonmyeloablative stem cell transplantation and cell therapy as an alternative to conventional bone marrow transplantation with lethal cytoreduction for the treatment of malignant and nonmalignant hematologic disease. Blood 1998; 91: 756–763.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kottaridis PD, Milligan DW, Chopra R et al. In vivo CAMPATH-1H prevents graft-versus-host disease following nonmyeloablative stem cell transplantation. Blood 2000; 96: 2419–2425.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mohty M, Faucher C, Vey N et al. High rate of secondary viral and bacterial infections in patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow mini-transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2000; 26: 251–255.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Michael J, Robertson J, Ritz J . Biology and clinical relevance of human natural killer cells. Blood 1990; 76: 2421–2438.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Soiffer RJ, Murray C, Cochran K et al. Clinical and immunologic effects of prolonged infusion of low-dose recombinant interleukin-2 after autologous and T-cell-depleted allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Blood 1992; 79: 517–526.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nieda M, Nicol A, Koezuka Y et al. TRAIL expression by activated human CD4+Vα24 NKT cells induces in vitro and vivo apoptosis of human acute myeloid leukemia cells. Blood 2001; 97: 2067–2074.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Moingeon P, Chang HC, Sayre PH et al. The structural biology of CD2. Immunol Rev 1989; 111: 111–144.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Berney SM, Schaan T, Wolf RE et al. CD2 (OKT11) augments CD3-mediated intracellular signaling events in human T lymphocytes. J Invest Med 2000; 48: 102–109.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Unit, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    T Saito, Y Kanda, K Nakai, S-W Kim, F Arima, M Kami, R Tanosaki, S Mineishi & Y Takaue

  2. Hematology Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan

    K Tobinai

  3. Pharmacology Division, National Cancer Center Institute, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    H Wakasugi & Y Heike

Authors
  1. T Saito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y Kanda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K Nakai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S-W Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F Arima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M Kami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R Tanosaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. K Tobinai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. H Wakasugi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Y Heike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. S Mineishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Y Takaue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y Takaue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saito, T., Kanda, Y., Nakai, K. et al. Immune reconstitution following reduced-intensity transplantation with cladribine, busulfan, and antithymocyte globulin: serial comparison with conventional myeloablative transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 32, 601–608 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1704205

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1704205

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links