Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta complaint alleges identical-twin stem cell transplant without genetic confirmation
The complaint alleges that Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and two physicians proceeded with what was represented as an allogeneic stem cell transplant for a pediatric T-cell lymphoma patient using her twin sister as donor, without first confirming whether the twins were identical. Later testing showed the donor was genetically identical to the recipient, and the procedure did not provide the intended allogeneic transplant benefit.
Overview
This page concerns a public complaint alleging that Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and two physicians proceeded with a pediatric stem cell transplant represented as allogeneic without first confirming whether the twin sibling donor was genetically identical to the recipient.
Chronology
The complaint alleges as follows:
- A pediatric oncology patient diagnosed with mature T-cell lymphoma underwent what was represented as an allogeneic stem cell transplant on January 16, 2025.
- The transplant used the patient’s twin sister as a matched sibling donor, and the transplant team treated the donor as a fraternal twin.
- The team proceeded without definitive genetic testing to determine whether the twins were genetically identical.
- Short tandem repeat testing finalized on February 24, 2025 showed identical patterns across all tested loci.
- Dr. Bidgoli later informed the family that the transplant performed was not the transplant that had been intended or represented.
Alleged failures
The complaint alleges the following failures:
- The transplant team failed to confirm whether the twin donor was genetically identical before proceeding.
- Consent forms reflected an allogeneic transplant and did not inform the patient that she might receive a procedure functionally equivalent to an autologous transplant.
- The patient faced a higher risk of disease recurrence because the intended allogeneic transplant benefit was not provided.
- An earlier bone marrow aspiration was performed in a clinic setting without adequate sedation when the patient’s skin involvement warranted an operating room and anesthesia.
