BACKGROUND: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from grafts in the circulation of transplant recipients is a potential biomarker of rejection. Its usefulness was investigated after heart transplantation during the maintenance phase by use of microarrays and massive parallel sequencing of donor and recipient DNA. Disadvantages of these methods are high costs, long turnaround times, and need for donor DNA. Therefore, we sought to develop a rapid and cost-effective method using digital droplet PCR (ddPCR).
Despite the increasing use of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) instead of bone marrow (BM) for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo HSCT) from human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched unrelated donors in children, the relative benefits and risks of both stem cell sources in the pediatric setting remain largely unknown. Recently, the only larger study comparing the value of the 2 stem cell sources in a young patient group was confined to transplantation from HLA-identical sibling donors in older children and adolescents with acute leukemia. Based on the paucity of data in pediatric HLA-matched unrelated donor transplantation, we analyzed the outcome of 23 BM and 38 PBPC transplantations performed at our center. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment were achieved significantly faster in PBPC compared to BM recipients (18 versus 22 days and 26 versus 33 days; P < .001 and P = .03) whereas the risk for grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) (62% versus 55%; P = .53) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD 65% versus 59%; P = .54) was comparable. As overall survival (OS; PBPC versus BM: 47.5% +/- 8.6% versus 51.8% +/- 10.5%; P = .88) and relapse-free survival (43.3% +/- 8.3% versus 51.8% +/- 10.5%; P = .60) are without detectable difference, PBPC and BM appear both as a valid stem cell source for HLA-matched unrelated donor transplantation in children with hematologic malignancies.
Chemokines orchestrate trafficking of immune effector cells during inflammation. Here we demonstrate that chemokines also serve to potentiate effector cell-mediated antineoplastic immune responses in vaccination strategies. As a critical mediator of inflammation, macrophage inflammatory protein 1alpha (CCL3/MIP-1alpha) attracts and stimulates both antigen-presenting and cytotoxic cells. In the A20 leukemia/lymphoma vaccine model, we explored the efficacy of MIP-1alpha in combination with interleukin-2 (IL-2) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). After subcutaneous injection of the MIP-1alpha + IL-2 or MIP-1alpha + GM-CSF combination vaccine, focal but pronounced infiltrates of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were observed at the vaccination sites. In mice with preestablished leukemia/lymphoma, survival is significantly improved in animals treated with MIP-1alpha + GM-CSF- and MIP-1alpha + IL-2-secreting vaccines. Protection is superior in the MIP-1alpha + GM-CSF group, with the effects of MIP-1alpha and GM-CSF being synergistic. In contrast, suppression of lymphoblast proliferation by single-immunogen vaccines secreting MIP-1alpha, GM-CSF, or IL-2 alone does not translate to improved survival. The systemic protective effects afforded by the MIP-1alpha + IL-2 or MIP-1alpha + GM-CSF combination are mediated by different effector cell populations. In the MIP-1alpha + IL-2 group, antineoplastic defense is mediated by CD8+ T and NK cells, whereas in the MIP-1alpha + GM-CSF group CD4+ T cells are involved in addition to CD8+ cytotoxic T cells, underscoring that T cell help is critical for long-term protection. Thus combination of MIP-1alpha with different cytokines recruits different sets of effector cells into a potent antineoplastic immune response.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.