Premium
Impact of cytomegalovirus serostatus on outcome of unrelated cord blood transplantation for adults: a single‐institute experience in Japan
Author(s) -
Tomonari Akira,
Takahashi Satoshi,
Ooi Jun,
Tsukada Nobuhiro,
Konuma Takaaki,
Kato Seiko,
Kasahara Senji,
Iseki Tohru,
Yamaguchi Takuhiro,
Tojo Arinobu,
Asano Shigetaka
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
european journal of haematology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.904
H-Index - 84
eISSN - 1600-0609
pISSN - 0902-4441
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2007.01006.x
Subject(s) - medicine , serostatus , cumulative incidence , cytomegalovirus , transplantation , betaherpesvirinae , immunology , hematopoietic stem cell transplantation , incidence (geometry) , gastroenterology , viral disease , herpesviridae , viral load , virus , physics , optics
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is one of the major infectious complications after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Several studies have shown that CMV‐seropositive patients have a substantial survival disadvantage after bone marrow transplantation (BMT) or peripheral blood SCT (PBSCT). Between August 1998 and February 2006, 101 adult patients underwent myeloablative cord blood transplantation (CBT) from unrelated donors at our institution. Sixteen and 85 patients were CMV‐seronegative and CMV‐seropositive, respectively, prior to CBT. Outcomes of CBT were compared between CMV‐seronegative and CMV‐seropositive patients. The cumulative incidences of neutrophil engraftment at 60 d after CBT did not differ between CMV‐seronegative and CMV‐seropositive patients (100% and 94%, P = 0.09); however, the cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment at 100 d was higher in CMV‐seronegative patients than CMV‐seropositive patients (100% vs. 86%, P < 0.005). The cumulative incidence of CMV antigenemia at 100 d was lower in CMV‐seronegative patients than CMV‐seropositive patients (0% vs. 77%, P < 0.001); however, the cumulative incidences of CMV disease did not differ between CMV‐seronegative and CMV‐seropositive patients (0% vs. 1%, P = 0.84). The probabilities of disease‐free survival at 2 yr also did not differ between CMV‐seronegative and CMV‐seropositive patients (92% vs. 72%, P = 0.16). The outcomes of CBT for CMV‐seropositive patients as well as CMV‐seronegative patients in our series were favorable. This might be due to effective antiviral therapy for CMV infection. Large‐scale studies are needed to determine the impact of recipient CMV serostatus on the outcome of CBT for adults.