Management of Epstein‐Barr Virus (EBV) Reactivation after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation by Simultaneous Analysis of EBV DNA Load and EBV‐Specific T Cell Reconstitution
Departments of 1Pediatrics and 2Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, and 3Department of Immunology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and 4 Institute for Cancer Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Background.
Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV) reactivation is a frequent event after allogeneic stem cell transplantation and may progress to life‐threatening lymphoproliferative disease (EBV‐LPD) in the absence of adequate EBV‐specific T cell immunity. Quantification of EBV DNA load in asymptomatic individuals who are at risk is a useful (although not entirely predictive) indicator of progression to EBV‐LPD and guide for preemptive treatment with CD20 antibodies.
Methods.
With the aim of improving the identification of patients at risk, we retrospectively analyzed, within a cohort of 25 consecutive allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients at risk for EBV‐LPD, the pattern of T cell reconstitution during EBV reactivation in all preemptively treated patients (8 patients).
Results.
In 6 of 8 cases, a significant T cell reconstitution (i.e., a CD3+ T cell count of >300 cells/μL) was documented during EBV reactivation, which included an expansion of EBV‐specific memory T cells, as shown by human leukocyte antigen class I tetramer analysis. Additional evidence for the antiviral potential of this T cell reconstitution was obtained prospectively from a cohort of 14 consecutive allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients at risk for EBV‐LPD. EBV reactivation occurred in 3 patients. Preemptive treatment was successfully withheld for 2 of these patients in light of concurrent (EBV‐specific) T cell recovery.
Conclusion.
We conclude that analysis of the level of (EBV‐specific) T cell reconstitution during EBV reactivation is an important second parameter, in addition to quantification of EBV DNA load, that will be instrumental in a more accurate definition of patients at risk for EBV‐LPD who, given their immunoincompetence, will be most certainly dependent on preemptive interventions.
Received 11 October 2005; accepted 27 January 2006; electronically published 4 May 2006.
-
(See the editorial commentary by Bitan on pages 1749–50)
Cited by
Online publication date: 1-Jun-2009.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Dec-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Oct-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Sep-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Apr-2008.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 1-Mar-2007.
CrossRef
Online publication date: 15-Jun-2006.
-
N.E.A. and R.G.M.B. contributed equally to this article.



