Long-Term Recipient Health-Related Quality of Life and Donor-Recipient Relationship following Sibling Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Despite the fact that the choice of donors and the number of sources of hematopoietic stem cells have increased, a sibling remains a preferred donor for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Transplant donation between siblings is a unique life experience that may have an impact on their future relationship. The aim of the study was to quantitatively measure the quality of life (QoL) in patients who underwent transplant and to describe the relationship between a recipient and a sibling donor after HSCT. We identified and invited 82 adults aged 18.0 to 38.7 years (median, 23.6) who underwent HSCT in our center and their sibling donors to participate in this survey. Forty-five patients (54.9%) and their siblings consented to take part in the study. The studied group consisted of 45 matched siblings donor (MSD)-HSCT recipients (19 women and 26 men) aged 18.0 to 36.2 (median, 28.5) years, who underwent MSD-HSCT at the age of 5.8 to 16.3 (median, 11.9) years, and their sibling donors aged 21.0 to 36.0 (median, 31.0) years, who were aged 11.2 to 20.2 (median, 15.5) years at bone marrow harvesting. For QoL and sibling relationship assessment, we used the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) and the Adult Sibling Relationship Questionnaire (ASQR). Higher scores indicate better quality of life in each scale of the FACT-BMT and the more significant is the factor in a sibling relationship measured by the ASQR. The questionnaires were given to both subgroups, HSCT recipients and donors, and the results were compared with each other. The overall result of the FACT-BMT questionnaire was 117 ± 35.0. The highest QoL was found in the functional (25.0 ± 3.5) and social well-being (25.0 ± 3.5) subscales, whereas the worst was in the emotional well-being (18.0 ± 9.5) subscale. Statistically, the QoL score was not influenced by current age (P = .378), age at the moment of HSCT (P = .256), and sex (P = .117). Being a recipient or a donor of HSCT was not a significant factor associated with warmth (2.6 ± 0.5 versus 3.1 ± 0.5; P = .830) and conflict (2.0 ± 0.7 versus 2.1 ± 1.2; P = .886) within the sibling relationship, whereas recipients scored significantly lower in rivalry within the sibling relationship compared with HSCT donors (0.8 ± 0.3 versus 1.2 ± 0.2; P = .012). The FACT Treatment Outcome Index remained the only significant predictor of warmth in the sibling relationship between HSCT recipient and donor. QoL in adult patients after HSCT in childhood was good. Sibling donor-recipient relationship is unbalanced, with a higher level of rivalry presented among donors. Further multicenter studies based on a larger cohort of patients are necessary to assess all aspects of the sibling relationship after transplantation experience.