Abstract
Similar to UCBT, haploidentical HCT can also be used on an urgent basis and extends donor availability to the vast majority of patients. In addition, haploidentical HCT allows a DLI if necessary.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
1 Introduction
-
Umbilical cord blood transplant (UCBT) from unrelated donors (UD) was developed to overcome the limitations of HLA-matched bone marrow (BM)/peripheral blood (PB) UDs and improve access to allogeneic transplant (allo-HCT) both by increasing the donor pool and fasten time to HCT.
-
UCBT activity has sharply decreased in favor of partially HLA-matched related donor transplants (haplo-HCT) using posttransplant cyclophosphamide (Passweg et al. 2021). This procedure shares most of the advantages of UCBT. It has expanded its use worldwide due to its effectiveness, lower financial impact, and relative simplicity. Two randomized trials have shown superiority of haplo-HCT over UCBT (Fuchs et al. 2020; Sanz et al. 2020). However, it is still a clinical option for some patients lacking other alternatives, due to either the absence of relative donors at due time or the presence of donor-specific antibodies. Whether or not it could be prioritized over haplo donors with negative characteristics like older age or gender mismatch should be the focus of future research.
-
Recent advances in conditioning, graft manipulation, and supportive care have improved UCBT outcomes. These advances reflect in very encouraging outcomes after UCBT for adults and children with high-risk leukemias and some genetic diseases.
2 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of UCBT
UCBT versus BMT/PBHCT | |
---|---|
Advantages | Disadvantages |
• Expanded access to transplant* – Higher availability of donor* – Faster search and shorter time to transplant* – Greater HLA disparity allowed with low incidence of GVHD* • Lower risk of transmission of viral infections • More versatile transplant planning* • No risk of donor refusal • No risk to the donor | • Slower engraftment • Higher risk of non-immunological rejection (graft failure) • Remote possibility of transmission of a genetic disease* • Greater delay in immune reconstitution • No possibility of donor lymphocyte infusion* |
*Advantages shared with partially matched related (haploidentical) HCT | *Disadvantages not shared with haploidentical HCT |
Similar to UCBT, haploidentical HCT can also be used on an urgent basis and extends donor availability to the vast majority of patients. In addition, haploidentical HCT allows a DLI if necessary.
3 Indications
Except for some patients with severe bone marrow failure, such as aplastic anemia and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, UCBT in adults is performed almost exclusively in patients with malignant hematological diseases. However, UCBT in children has been used for many other nonmalignant diseases, including primary immunodeficiency diseases and inherited metabolic disorders.
The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT) (Kanate et al. 2020) and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) (Snowden et al. 2022) have recently published their respective guidelines that include recommendations for transplant indications in children and adults. It should be noted that the ASBMT did not differentiate recommendations for transplant indications based on donor or graft source and EBMT grouped the same indications for all HLA-mismatched alternative donors (UCB, haplo, and mismatched unrelated donors).
Allo-HCT indications should not defer according to donor or graft source but rather the expertise of the transplant center along with patient- and/or disease-related factors, and availability should determine the donor/graft source for the individual patient. More recent data shows that UCBT is probably a preferred donor choice for patients with very high-risk leukemias and some genetic and metabolic disorders in children; however, comparative studies with other alternative donors are lacking in the literature.
4 Approaches to Improve Outcomes After UCBT
Strategies have been developed aiming to shorten the time to engraftment, improve immune reconstitution, and decrease NRM.
Approaches to improve outcomes after UCBT | Expert point of view |
---|---|
1. Refining criteria for UCB unit selection | Selection of the most appropriate UCB unit is key to transplant success. Recent comprehensive consensus guidelines have been recently published (Politikos et al. 2020; Ruggeri 2019). Selection of double cord blood units including high-resolution HLA typing for adults have been recently published (Fatobene et al. 2020; Fatobene et al. 2023). See chapter of banking, processing, and procurement of cord blood cells |
2. Optimization of conditioning regimens | Specific conditioning regimen can influence transplant outcomes. See Sect. 64.5 |
3. Strategies aiming to shorten the time to engraftment: | |
(a) Double UCBT | In children, two randomized trials have demonstrated no benefit and increased risk of GVHD (Wagner et al. 2014; Michel et al. 2016) In adults, retrospective studies showed no advantage when single-unit with TNC dose >2.5 × 107/kg available (Scaradavou et al. 2013) |
(b) Co-infusion with third-party cells | Has consistently demonstrated benefit to accelerate hematopoietic recovery. No proved benefit on NRM or survival (Sanz et al. 2017) |
(c) Ex vivo expansion of UCB cells | Omidubicel, the first FDA-approved UCB ex vivo-expanded cellular therapy product, has demonstrated faster engraftment, fewer infections, and decreased NRM compared with unmanipulated UCB that was confirmed in long-term follow-up (Horwitz et al. 2021). Should be considered the standard of care. However, logistical issues and costs may hamper real-life use. Other compounds to expand CB cells such as UM171 are currently being explored in phase 2 clinical trials with encouraging results (Cohen et al. 2020) |
4. Improvement of supportive measures | Supportive care to prevent or treat opportunistic infections until neutrophil and immune recovery has occurred is critical in UCBT. See Sect. 64.7 |
5 Conditioning Regimens
The selection of conditioning regimen for HCT, including UCBT, should take into account the risk of toxicity and the risk of graft failure and relapse in malignant diseases. In UCBT, given the relatively lower cell dose (T cells and CD34+ cells) and the use of HLA-mismatched grafts, graft failure is of particular concern, especially in adults. It usually combines agents with additive immunosuppressive properties. The choice of the conditioning regimen is of primary importance and can influence transplant outcomes. A comprehensive and exhaustive review of myeloablative and nonmyeloblative/reduced intensity conditioning regimens in the UCBT setting has been published (Cord blood transplantations 2017). The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Cord Blood Special Interest Group has also recently published their recommendations (Metheny et al. 2021).
The use of in vivo T-cell depletion with ATG in the conditioning regimen has been used to enhance myeloid engraftment as well as to prevent GVHD. Its use has been associated with reduced rates of GVHD but also with increased mortality due to delayed T-cell recovery in hematologic malignancies and is generally not recommended in this setting. Some data suggest that safety of ATG can be improved by adjusting timing or dose with ATG pharmacokinetics (Admiraal et al. 2016) to avoid posttransplantation exposure.
Some conditioning regimens options of varying intensities to be considered are as follows:
Myeloablative conditioning regimens (MAC) | |
Chemotherapy-based | |
• TBF regimen (Sanz et al. 2012) | TT 10 mg/kg + BU IV 9.6 mg/kg + Flu 150 mg/m2 |
TBI-based | |
• TBI-Flu-Cy regimen (Barker et al. 2015) | TBI 13.2 Gy + CY 120 mg/kg + Flu 75 mg/m2 |
TT thiotepa, BU busulfan, Flu fludarabine, TBI total body irradiation, CY cyclophosphamide | |
Intermediate intensity conditioning regimens (IIC) | |
• TBI-TT-flu-Cy regimen (Barker et al. 2020) | TT 10 mg/kg + CY 50 mg/kg + Flu 150 mg/m2 + TBI 4 Gy |
TT thiotepa, Flu fludarabine, CY cyclophosphamide, TBI total body irradiation, CY cyclophosphamide | |
Reduced intensity conditioning regimens (RIC) | |
• rTBI-Ffu-Cy regimen (Fuchs et al. 2020) | TBI 2 Gy + CY 50 mg/kg + Flu 200 mg/m2 |
TBI total body irradiation, CY cyclophosphamide, Flu fludarabine |
6 GVHD Prophylaxis
The most important advantage of UCB over unrelated donor grafts is the capability to tolerate HLA disparities and facilitate a low incidence of chronic GVHD. However, acute GVHD is still one of the most important contributors to morbidity and mortality. Different GVHD prophylaxis regimens have been explored with no evidence of benefit of any specific strategy. Methotrexate is generally not recommended to avoid myelotoxicity and delayed neutrophil recovery although it is widely used in Asia. The most frequently used regimen worldwide is the combination of calcineurin inhibitors for 6–9 months with mycophenolate mofetil for 2–6 months.
7 Supportive Care
The supportive measures described below are not intended to be recommendations but only to be taken into account and to consider their use in the context of each institution’s own experience and epidemiology. The most common measures are described merely as a guide since they have a very variable level of evidence.
Prophylaxis, monitoring, and treatment options to be considered for infections.
Supportive measures for bacterial infections | ||
Prophylaxis | Monitoring | Treatment |
Levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin | Surveillance cultures to detect colonization with multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria | Empirical antibacterial therapy according to institutional epidemiologic patterns |
Supportive measures for fungal infections | ||
Prophylaxis | Monitoring | Treatment |
Mold-covering azole | Galactomannan and beta-D-glucan assaysa | Liposomal amphotericin B, azoles, and/or echinocandins (according to previous prophylaxis) |
Supportive measures for viral infections | ||
Prophylaxis | Monitoring (quantitative PCR) | Treatment |
CMV: letermovir | Weekly on days 0–100 and then as clinically indicated | Ganciclovir, valganciclovir, foscarnet |
HHV-6: none | As clinically indicated | Ganciclovir, valganciclovir, foscarnet |
Adenovirus: none | Weekly on days 0–100 and then as clinically indicatedb | Cidofovir |
EBV: none | Weekly on days 0–100 and then as clinically indicated | Preemptive rituximab |
Supportive measures for protozoal infections | ||
Prophylaxis | Monitoring | Treatment |
Pneumocystis: cotrimoxazol, pentamidine, or atovaquone | – | Cotrimoxazol, pentamidine, or atovaquone |
Toxoplasmosis: cotrimoxazol, atovaquone, or pyrimethamine | – | Cotrimoxazol, atovaquone, or pyrimethamine |
8 Results
UCBT outcomes are still improving in more recent years, probably explained by better patient and CBU selection, improved conditioning, and supported care. Registry data also showed important center effect with superior survival obtained in experienced centers. Eurocord recently updated clinical results.
Multiple retrospective studies have demonstrated that UCBT offers similar long-term outcomes compared with the gold standard of HLA-matched unrelated donor transplants in patients with hematologic malignancies, both in children and adults (Eapen et al. 2007; Brunstein et al. 2010; Atsuta et al. 2012). Interestingly, UCBT seems to offer a potent antileukemic efficacy, through yet unknown mechanisms. A markedly reduced relapse rate after UCBT as compared to URD transplantation in patients transplanted with minimal residual disease has been reported and needs to be validated (Milano et al, 2016). Moreover recently, the same observation has been reported in children with very high-risk leukemia transplanted with single CB units. Two-year EFS was 80% for CR 2, 67% for high risk (primary refractory or relapsed leukemia), and 61% for patients transplanted in CR1 (Horgan et al. 2023). In the same direction, very impressive results have been reported in children with genetic and metabolic disorders. Two-year overall survival was 91% with a median follow-up time of 4 years (Martinez et al. 2023).
9 Adults
2-year OS (%) | |
---|---|
Outcomes according to DRI | |
Low | 55 ± 3 |
Intermediate | 47 ± 1 |
High | 27 ± 2 |
Very high | 19 ± 3 |
Disease-specific outcomes | |
Acute leukemia | 37 ± 1 |
MDS/MPS | 32 ± 2 |
Lymphoproliferative disorders | 45 ± 2 |
Plasma cell disorder | 37 ± 5 |
10 Children
2-year OS (%) | |
---|---|
Malignant disorders | 49 ± 1 |
Acute leukemia | 52 ± 1 |
MDS | 55 ± 3 |
Lymphoproliferative disorders | 55 ± 3 |
Nonmalignant disorders | 63 ± 1 |
Inborn error of metabolism | 70 ± 2 |
Hemoglobinopathies | 68 ± 9 |
Primary immunodeficiency | 68 ± 2 |
Histiocytic disorders | 60 ± 4 |
Bone marrow failure syndrome | 52 ± 3 |
11 Conclusions
UCBT activity has drastically decreased in favor of other donor/stem cell options, specially haplo-HCT that shares the main advantage of UCB: high and rapid availability. However, UCB remains a valuable source of stem cells for HCT in selected patients that lack other options or in highly specialized units with preference of UCB. Important improvements in the field have taken place with a beneficial impact on NRM. Strategies to enhance engraftment with UCB ex vivo expansion have shown impressive success, although its widespread use and benefit in real-life clinical practice remain to be seen. There is still a room for improvement; however, clinical research in the field will be challenging in the future.
References
Admiraal R, Lindemans CA, Van Kesteren C, et al. Excellent T-cell reconstitution and survival depend on low ATG exposure after pediatric cord blood transplantation. Blood. 2016;128(23):2734–41.
Atsuta Y, Morishima Y, Suzuki R, et al. Comparison of unrelated cord blood transplantation and HLA-mismatched unrelated bone marrow transplantation for adults with leukemia. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(5):780–7.
Barker JN, Fei M, Karanes C, et al. Results of a prospective multicentre myeloablative double-unit cord blood transplantation trial in adult patients with acute leukaemia and myelodysplasia. Br J Haematol. 2015;168(3):405–12.
Barker JN, Devlin SM, Naputo KA, et al. High progression-free survival after intermediate intensity double unit cord blood transplantation in adults. Blood Adv. 2020;4(23):6064–76.
Brunstein CG, Gutman JA, Weisdorf DJ, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for hematologic malignancy: relative risks and benefits of double umbilical cord blood. Blood. 2010;116(22):4693.
Cohen S, Roy J, Lachance S, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation using single UM171-expanded cord blood: a single-arm, phase 1–2 safety and feasibility study. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7(2):e134–45.
Cord blood transplantations. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017.
Eapen M, Rubinstein P, Zhang MJ, et al. Outcomes of transplantation of unrelated donor umbilical cord blood and bone marrow in children with acute leukaemia: a comparison study. Lancet. 2007;369(9577):1947–54.
Fatobene G, Volt F, Moreira F, et al. Optimizing selection of double cord blood units for transplantation of adult patients with malignant diseases. Blood Adv. 2020;4(24):6327–35.
Fatobene G, Mariano L, Volt F, et al. Impact of allele-level HLA matching on outcomes after double cord blood transplantation in adults with malignancies. Blood Adv. 2023;7(13):3297.
Fuchs EJ, O’Donnell PV, Eapen M, et al. Double unrelated umbilical cord blood versus HLA-haploidentical bone marrow transplantation (BMT CTN 1101). Blood. 2020;137(3):420–8.
Horgan C, Mullanfiroze K, Rauthan A, et al. T-cell replete cord transplants give superior outcomes in high-risk and relapsed/refractory pediatric myeloid malignancy. Blood Adv. 2023;7(10):2155–65.
Horwitz ME, Stiff PJ, Cutler CS, et al. Omidubicel versus standard myeloablative umbilical cord blood transplantation: results of a phase III randomized study. Blood. 2021;138(16):1429–40.
Kanate AS, Majhail NS, Savani BN, et al. Indications for hematopoietic cell transplantation and immune effector cell therapy: guidelines from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020;26(7):1247–56.
Martinez C, Aguayo-Hiraldo P, Chaimowitz N, et al. Cord blood transplantation for nonmalignant disorders: early functional immunity and high survival. Blood Adv. 2023;7(9):1823–30.
Metheny L, Politikos I, Ballen KK, et al. Guidelines for adult patient selection and conditioning regimens in cord blood transplant recipients with hematologic malignancies and aplastic anemia. Transplant Cell Ther. 2021;27(4):286–91.
Michel G, Galambrun C, Sirvent A, et al. Single- vs double-unit cord blood transplantation for children and young adults with acute leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. Blood. 2016;127(26):3450–7.
Passweg JR, Baldomero H, Chabannon C, et al; for the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Hematopoietic cell transplantation and cellular therapy survey of the EBMT: monitoring of activities and trends over 30 years. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021;56:1651–1664.
Politikos I, Davis E, Nhaissi M, et al. Guidelines for cord blood unit selection. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020;26(12):2190–6.
Ruggeri A. Optimizing cord blood selection. Hematology (United States). 2019;2019(1):522–31.
Sanz J, Boluda JCH, Martín C, et al. Single-unit umbilical cord blood transplantation from unrelated donors in patients with hematological malignancy using busulfan, thiotepa, fludarabine and ATG as myeloablative conditioning regimen. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(10):1287–93.
Sanz J, Kwon M, Bautista G, et al. Single umbilical cord blood with or without CD34+ cells from a third-party donor in adults with leukemia. Blood Adv. 2017;1(15):1047–55.
Sanz J, Montoro J, Solano C, et al. Prospective randomized study comparing myeloablative unrelated umbilical cord blood transplantation versus HLA-haploidentical related stem cell transplantation for adults with hematologic malignancies. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020;26(2):358–66.
Scaradavou A, Brunstein CG, Eapen M, et al. Double unit grafts successfully extend the application of umbilical cord blood transplantation in adults with acute leukemia. Blood. 2013;121(5):752–8.
Snowden JA, Sánchez-Ortega I, Corbacioglu S, et al. Indications for haematopoietic cell transplantation for haematological diseases, solid tumours and immune disorders: current practice in Europe, 2022. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022;57(8):1217–39.
Wagner JE, Eapen M, Carter S, et al. One-unit versus two-unit cord-blood transplantation for hematologic cancers. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(18):1685–94.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sanz, J., Rocha, V. (2024). Role of Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation. In: Sureda, A., Corbacioglu, S., Greco, R., Kröger, N., Carreras, E. (eds) The EBMT Handbook. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44080-9_64
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44080-9_64
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-44079-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-44080-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)