Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Aug 24.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Surg. 2010 Dec;252(6):915–928. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f3efb0

TABLE 1.

Synoptic View of All Successful and Unsuccessful Cases of COT After RT*

Classification Subtype Center Type of Study Claimed Cases of COT Length of Follow-up From the Time of the Withdrawal of the IS Histocompatibility
Nonadherence to IS Spontaneous withdrawal Los Angeles18 Case report 4, but eventually 1 rejected after 18 mo 17, 23, 52 mo. However, they were taking azathioprine sporadically In 2 cases, histocompatibility was not matched. First 2A, the second available 4A
Minneapolis20 Case report 6, but 5 rejected after few months Not available Not available
Madison21 Case report 8, but 7 rejected after few months 40 Not available
Madison22 Case report 5, but 4 rejected after few months 5 y Not available in 1 case, unclear in 3. HLA identical in the remaining case
Columbus-Madison23,24 Case report 2 5 and 27 y Patient no. 1: HLA A1, 2 B44, 62 DR4, 13 donor; A1, 2 B37, 60 DR4, 13 recipient
Patient no. 2: HLA identical
Pregnancy Erlangen-Munster25 Case report, pregnancy 1 9 y Only HLA class I tissue typing was available. Donor: A2, A28, B8, B40. Recipient: A1, A28, B8, B40
Survey Boston19 Descriptive, observational 13 >1 y Unclear
Los Angeles18 Descriptive, observational 24, but 22 rejected after few mo 9, 36 mo Not available
Nantes29 Descriptive, investigative 7, one of whom rejected after being IS-free for 13 y 9.7 (range, 1–20) y One patient was HLA-identical to the donor. One, 2, and 3 patients had 1, 3, or 4 mismatches for HLA, respectively. For HLA DR (not available in 2 cases), 3 patients presented 1 mismatch, whereas 1 presented 2 mismatches
Nantes30 Descriptive, investigative 4 10.3 (5–20) y Not available
Nantes31 Descriptive, investigative 5 8.4 (3–17) y One patient was HLA-identical to the donor. Two more patients had 4 and 2 mismatches, respectively. Typing was not available in 2 patients
Nantes32 Descriptive, investigative 4 8 (2–12) y Not available
Nantes33 Descriptive, investigative 2 10 and 12 y Not available
Nantes34 Descriptive, investigative 6 2–13 y, mean values not being available Not available
Nantes35 Descriptive, investigative 17. The reasons for IS withdrawal was not specified per single patients >2 y COT patients are divided in 2 groups. One group of 5 patients presents a mean HLA incompatibility score of 3.2 (range, 3–4). The other group of 12 individuals shows a score of 3 (range, 2–4)
Nantes36,37 Descriptive, investigative 6 6.4 (17.3) y One patient was HLA-identical. One patient showed 3 HLA mismatches. Four patients presented either 1 (2 cases) or 4 (2 cases) mismatches
European Consortium for tolerance91,92 Descriptive, investigative 11. The reasons for IS withdrawal was not specified per single patients >1 y Not available
American network for immune tolerance93 Descriptive, investigative 25. The reasons for IS withdrawal was not specified per single patients >1 y Not available
Physician-driven weaning of IS PTLD Aarhus38 Case report 1 >3 y HLA identical, living related
Survey Nantes29 Descriptive, investigative 3, of whom 2 for PTLD and 1 for recurrent infections and basal cellular carcinoma; one rejected after being IS-free for 7 y 8.6 y (mean time, range, 6–11) Patient no. 1: HLA/HLA DR incompatibility number 3 and 2, respectively
Patient no. 2: 3, 1
Patient no. 3: 3, 0
Nantes30 Descriptive, investigative 1 6 y Not available
Nantes31 Descriptive, investigative 2, of whom 1 for PTLD and 1 for CNI toxicity 3 and 8 y Both presented 3 HLA A-B-DR mismatches
Nantes32 Descriptive, investigative 2 8 (2–12) y Not available
Nantes33 Descriptive, investigative 3, of whom 2 for PTLD and 1 for recurrent infections and basal cellular carcinoma; one rejected after being IS-free for 7 years 6.3 (3–8) Not available
Nantes34 Descriptive, investigative 2, of whom 1 for PTLD and 1 for CNI toxicity 2–13 y, mean values not being available Not available
Nantes35 Descriptive, investigative 17. The reasons for IS withdrawal were not specified per single patient >2 y COT patients are divided in 2 groups. One group of 5 patients presents a mean HLA incompatibility score of 3.2 (range, 3–4). The other group of 12 individuals shows a score of 3 (range, 2–4)
Nantes36,37 Descriptive, investigative 2, of whom 1 for PTLD and 1 for CNI toxicity 3 and 10 y Both patients were presenting 3 HLA DR A-B-DR mismatches
European Consortium for tolerance91,92 Descriptive, investigative 11. The reasons for IS withdrawal were not specified per single patient >1 y Not available
American network for immune tolerance93 Descriptive, investigative 25. The reasons for IS withdrawal were not specified per single patient >1 y Not available
Implementation of tolerogenic strategies ab initio Molecule based Pittsburgh39 Prospective, noncomparative 0/39 — Not available
Cambridge41–45 Prospective, comparative, nonrandomized 0/33 — Not available
Oxford40 Prospective, noncomparative 0/13 — Not available
Bethesda47 Prospective, noncomparative 0/7 — Not available
Bethesda48 Prospective, noncomparative 0/5 — Not available
Cell based Previous BMT Boston BWH55 Case report 2* 7 and 3 y HLA identical
Geneva56 Case report 1 2 y HLA identical
Copenhagen57 Case report 1 1 y Donor: HLA A24, B7, DR5/A1, B8,DR2, blood group 0
Recipient: A24, B8, DR3/A1,B8, DR2, blood group A
San Francisco58 Case report 1 2 y HLA mismatched, haploidentical (the donor being the patient's father)
Milwaukee59 Case report 2 15 and 30 mo All HLA identical
Birmingham, AL60 Case report 1 7 HLA identical
HSC Boston MGH73–75 Prospective, noncomparative 3/6 7.3, 5.3, 2 y HLA identical
Boston MGH76 Prospective, noncomparative 4/5 4.6, 3.4, 2.2 and 1.2 y HLA mismatched
Stanford78 Prospective, noncomparative 1/4 14 y HLA mismatched.
Patient no. 1: A1, 31, B44, 60, DR7, 9 donor;
A2, X, B44, 60, DR1, 4 recipient.
Patient no. 2: A11, 34, B13, B* 1535, DR4, 8 donor; A34, X, B* 1521, B*1535, DR4,
15 recipient
Patient no. 3: A1, 3 B8, 27, DR1, 17 donor; A3, 31, B27, 35, DR1, X recipient
Patient no. 4: A3, 11, B60, X, DR4, 4 donor; A2, 29, B7, 44, DR1, 8.
Stanford79 Prospective, noncomparative 1/3 28 m HLA identical
Gujarat71 Prospective, nonrandomized 0/24 — Not available
Gujarat72 Prospective, randomized 0/12 — Not available
Miami70 Prospective, nonrandomized, comparative 0/63 — Not available
ESC Gujarat16 Prospective, randomized 1/1 3 mo HLA identical
TAIC Kiel80 Prospective, noncomparative 0/12 — All degrees of matches (not better specified)
Kiel81 Prospective, noncomparative 0/5 — One HLA identical, the other being mismatched
Total body irradiation Stanford88,89 Prospective 3/28, but 1 rejected after 10 mo for nonimmunological reason 144 and 69 mo Patient no. 1: A28/30, B14/17, DR2/8 donor; A2/11, Bw44/y, DR4/5
Patient no. 2: A2/x, B7/18, DR3/- donor; A2/11, Bw44/y, DR1/7
Patient no. 3: A3/10, B7/35 donor; A10/w26, B7/w40
*

Overall, 240 RT patients have been reported to be or to have been IS-free for at least 1 year. Yet, the actual number of tolerant patients cannot be accurately calculated because some series have been the object of numerous investigations, which lead to many papers.