戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 etic cell transplantation following standard myeloablative conditioning.
2 s hematopoiesis in cancer patients following myeloablative conditioning.
3 [NC]/kg; range, 1.1-6.3 x 10(7) NC/kg) after myeloablative conditioning.
4 zed peripheral blood CD34(+) cells following myeloablative conditioning.
5 e been developed for patients ineligible for myeloablative conditioning.
6 oietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) after myeloablative conditioning.
7  transplantation (SCT) performed by means of myeloablative conditioning.
8 imeras produced across HLA barriers with non-myeloablative conditioning.
9 s complicated ex vivo manipulation and toxic myeloablative conditioning.
10  and 44 (79%) had received chemotherapy-only myeloablative conditioning.
11 ithdrew consent before HSPC mobilisation and myeloablative conditioning.
12 ced-intensity conditioning with melphalan or myeloablative conditioning.
13 dase (IDUA)-encoding lentiviral vector after myeloablative conditioning.
14 D while preserving protective immunity after myeloablative conditioning.
15 on (p.i.), maintaining continuous ART during myeloablative conditioning.
16 HSCs were transplanted into recipients after myeloablative conditioning.
17 GVHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) after myeloablative conditioning.
18 T) with kidney transplantation following non-myeloablative conditioning.
19 ge, 0.8-15.5 years; mean, 7 years) following myeloablative conditioning.
20 ments and compared with LC-engraftment after myeloablative conditioning.
21 th seronegative donors, if they had received myeloablative conditioning.
22 ty and mortality associated with traditional myeloablative conditioning.
23 l malignancies who cannot tolerate intensive myeloablative conditioning.
24 nditioned transplants and which require more myeloablative conditioning.
25 eral blood mononuclear cells (G-PBMCs) after myeloablative conditioning.
26 ormed in first complete remission (CR) after myeloablative conditioning.
27 4-6/6 HLA matched dUCB (n = 128) graft after myeloablative conditioning.
28 patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT after myeloablative conditioning.
29 s favoring reduced intensity conditioning or myeloablative conditioning.
30 res of 3 compared with patients who received myeloablative conditioning.
31 a (MDS) after nonmyeloablative compared with myeloablative conditioning.
32 74 concurrent and consecutive patients given myeloablative conditioning (ablative patients) before un
33 ss effectiveness of allogeneic HSCT with non-myeloablative conditioning after autologous HSCT compare
34                             Group 3 received myeloablative conditioning, an autologous BM transplant
35  or from TP53-mutant CH that survives direct myeloablative conditioning and acquires melphalan-induce
36 ollowed by high-dose therapy and auto-SCT or myeloablative conditioning and allo-SCT.
37 nt of acute lethal GVHD in mice that undergo myeloablative conditioning and allogeneic BMT.
38  also relatively resistant to both high-dose myeloablative conditioning and allogeneic graft-versus-t
39                                              Myeloablative conditioning and chronic graft-versus-host
40 fely and effectively combined with IV Bu/Flu myeloablative conditioning and confirms PTCy's efficacy
41 sted the hypothesis that patients undergoing myeloablative conditioning and haemopoietic cell transpl
42 ylaxis regimen for patients treated with non-myeloablative conditioning and HLA-matched unrelated HSC
43 3) using PTCy as sole GVHD prophylaxis after myeloablative conditioning and HLA-matched-related or -u
44                        High TRM suggest that myeloablative conditioning and HLA-mismatched donors sho
45                            Patients received myeloablative conditioning and prophylaxis with a calcin
46                     Treatment of leukemia by myeloablative conditioning and transplantation of major
47  nonobese diabetic (NOD)/scid mice underwent myeloablative conditioning and transplantation with huma
48 articipants received autologous OTQ923 after myeloablative conditioning and were followed for 6 to 18
49 s included cord blood or HLA-mismatched HCT, myeloablative conditioning, and acute graft-versus-host
50 uced toxicity conditioning (RTC) rather than myeloablative conditioning, and children with minimal re
51           Reduced intensity conditioning and myeloablative conditioning are both valid options for pa
52 are difficult to find, and the toxicities of myeloablative conditioning are prohibitive for most adul
53 ain uncertain, and effects in the context of myeloablative conditioning are unclear.
54 sence of nicotinamide and transplanted after myeloablative conditioning as a stand-alone hematopoieti
55 avenous busulfan and fludarabine (IV Bu/Flu) myeloablative conditioning as well as graft-versus-host
56                                              Myeloablative conditioning before bone marrow transplant
57  patients who underwent transplantation with myeloablative conditioning between 1994 and 1998.
58 itic cells (DCs) after BMT in the setting of myeloablative conditioning but is persistent after nonmy
59 ntial utility to confer the benefit of fully myeloablative conditioning but with substantially reduce
60                Our findings suggest that non-myeloablative conditioning can achieve durable stem cell
61                  All but 8 patients received myeloablative conditioning; cyclosporine plus steroids w
62 ukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome receiving myeloablative conditioning followed by a matched 10 of 1
63                            Patients received myeloablative conditioning followed by mobilized periphe
64  ex vivo CD34+ selected allogeneic HCT after myeloablative conditioning for haematological malignanci
65 oietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) with myeloablative conditioning for hematologic malignancies
66 ents older than 50 years of age (N = 47) and myeloablative conditioning for younger patients (N = 117
67 urvived, compared with 10 (53%) of 19 in the myeloablative conditioning group (P = .014).
68 llogeneic transplantation using conventional myeloablative conditioning has been demonstrated, but th
69     Hematopoietic cell transplantation after myeloablative conditioning has been used to treat variou
70  significant donor engraftment without fully myeloablative conditioning has revolutionized allogeneic
71                                        After myeloablative conditioning, higher dominant unit total n
72 h ABO incompatibility (HR, 2.61; P=0.05) and myeloablative conditioning (HR, 4.17; P=0.047).
73 cell-based lentiviral gene therapy following myeloablative conditioning in first-in-human studies (tr
74 nsplantation-related mortality compared with myeloablative conditioning in high-risk patients undergo
75 lated donor with either reduced-intensity or myeloablative conditioning in patients with blood cancer
76 genetically modify HSPCs without the need of myeloablative conditioning is relevant for a broader cli
77 ion (SCT) from a matched related donor after myeloablative conditioning is the preferred curative tre
78  high treatment-related mortality rates when myeloablative conditioning is used.
79 ic recovery is more likely to be achieved if myeloablative conditioning is used; additionally, they s
80                                        After myeloablative conditioning, KIR-L mismatch had no effect
81 , 6 treatment categories were evaluated: (1) myeloablative conditioning (MA) with total body irradiat
82 d mycophenolate mofetil in two adult strata: myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and reduced-intensity o
83 ioning regimen, but comparative studies with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) are limited in patients
84 ignancy in morphologic complete remission to myeloablative conditioning (MAC) or reduced-intensity co
85   However, studies directly comparing RIC to myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens are lacking.
86 e when offering total body irradiation-based myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens.
87  Seven patients received busulfan-containing myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens.
88 stion of whether RIC should replace standard myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens.
89                 Thirty-six patients received myeloablative conditioning (MAC), and 21 patients receiv
90    EFS was best with matched sibling donors, myeloablative conditioning (MAC), and bone marrow-derive
91 C) has shown superior outcomes compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC), making RIC-HSCT a viab
92 re few data comparing outcomes with RIC with myeloablative conditioning (MAC).
93 improved overall survival (OS) compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC).
94 c stem-cell transplantation (allo-SCT) after myeloablative conditioning (MAC).
95 uced-intensity conditioning (RIC) instead of myeloablative conditioning (MAC); however, the biology u
96 nsplanted in first or second remission after myeloablative conditioning (MAC; n = 515) or non-MAC (n
97 emia using RIC regimens with those receiving myeloablative-conditioning (MAC) regimens.
98 Janus kinase 3/IL-7 receptor-deficient SCID, myeloablative conditioning, matched donor HSCT, and naiv
99 Janus kinase 3/IL-7 receptor-deficient SCID, myeloablative conditioning, matched donor HSCT, and naiv
100 ng complete remission, the data suggest that myeloablative conditioning may not be required for succe
101 logeneic bone-marrow transplantation without myeloablative conditioning might have potent immunothera
102 wever, in the subpopulation of patients with myeloablative conditioning (n=72), EASIX-GVHD did not pr
103 nrelated HSCT with MSC co-infusion after non-myeloablative conditioning (NMA).
104  date, however, BM chimera protocols require myeloablative conditioning of recipient mice, which dram
105 t potential has been impeded by the need for myeloablative conditioning of the host and development o
106 and busulfan-based, pharmacokinetic-adjusted myeloablative conditioning, patients were infused with b
107 e that overexpression of TGF-beta1 following myeloablative conditioning post-BMT results in impaired
108 lfan (0.8 mg/kg/d x 4); 81 patients received myeloablative conditioning, primarily cyclophosphamide a
109                                     Standard myeloablative conditioning prior to allogeneic hematopoi
110                                 Standardized myeloablative conditioning produced a low incidence of t
111                                 Low-toxicity myeloablative conditioning recipients have better B-lymp
112 omized trials comparing nonmyeloablative and myeloablative conditioning regardless of disease status.
113                                            A myeloablative conditioning regimen (group 3) prevented t
114 -intensity conditioning regimen (RIC) with a myeloablative conditioning regimen (MAC) before allogene
115                     Most patients received a myeloablative conditioning regimen (n = 873; 87%); the r
116  87 IB-UCBT with 149 dUCBT recipients, after myeloablative conditioning regimen adjusting for the dif
117  outstanding results in children following a myeloablative conditioning regimen and a matched sibling
118 ) cord-blood transplantation after a uniform myeloablative conditioning regimen and immunoprophylaxis
119                        The reduced toxicity, myeloablative conditioning regimen contained no serother
120 py strategy, particularly when it involves a myeloablative conditioning regimen for hematopoietic ste
121 uman T-lymphocyte immune globulin (ATG) in a myeloablative conditioning regimen for patients with acu
122 8 children with Hurler syndrome (HS) after a myeloablative conditioning regimen from 1995 to 2007.
123                                          The myeloablative conditioning regimen included busulfan, cy
124  cohorts treated before and after changes in myeloablative conditioning regimen intensity (high vs. s
125  transplants for acute leukemia, all given a myeloablative conditioning regimen, and with available a
126 ospective clinical trials of the most common myeloablative conditioning regimen, BEAM, are limited.
127 an unrelated 10/10 HLA-matched donor, with a myeloablative conditioning regimen, between Jan 1, 2000,
128 cies received a total body irradiation-based myeloablative conditioning regimen.
129 es of canine bone marrow CD34+ cells after a myeloablative conditioning regimen.
130 matched bone-marrow transplantation by a non-myeloablative conditioning regimen.
131 seropositive donor if the patient receives a myeloablative conditioning regimen.
132  marrow grafts from an unrelated donor and a myeloablative conditioning regimen.
133               Most UCB recipients received a myeloablative conditioning regimen; most MMRDT recipient
134 arabine is an efficacious, reduced-toxicity, myeloablative-conditioning regimen for patients with AML
135 , p=0.0020), reduced intensity compared with myeloablative conditioning regimens (HR 1.36, 1.10-1.68,
136 a, or myelodysplastic syndrome; 98% received myeloablative conditioning regimens 100% received T-repl
137 xicity, much of which is consequent upon the myeloablative conditioning regimens currently used.
138  or busulfan (BuCy) are the most widely used myeloablative conditioning regimens for allotransplants.
139                                      Current myeloablative conditioning regimens for hematopoietic st
140  myelosuppression and other toxicities after myeloablative conditioning regimens have hampered wider
141 rts yielded MP-TCD (P<0.001), high-intensity myeloablative conditioning regimens used in cohort 1 (P
142                                          Two myeloablative conditioning regimens were used at the dis
143  syndrome should receive busulfan-containing myeloablative conditioning regimens with caution.
144 's syndrome who received busulfan-containing myeloablative conditioning regimens, compared with non-G
145 HSCT from HLA-identical sibling donors after myeloablative conditioning regimens, mainly for hematolo
146 genetics and HCT from unrelated donors using myeloablative conditioning regimens.
147  stem cells in human adults not subjected to myeloablative conditioning regimens.
148 nd overall survival between donor types with myeloablative conditioning regimens.
149 conditioning regimens and those who received myeloablative conditioning regimens.
150 tients received T-replete grafts with mostly myeloablative conditioning regimens.
151                                         'Non-myeloablative' conditioning regimens to achieve lymphocy
152                                              Myeloablative conditioning represented 66% of transplant
153 conditioning compared with 78% and 50% after myeloablative conditioning, respectively.
154                             Notably, though, myeloablative conditioning resulted in a reduced expansi
155                                              Myeloablative conditioning results in thymic epithelial
156 ive hundred patients (38%) received standard myeloablative conditioning (SMC), and 833 (62%) received
157 ated HSCT pre-treatment could serve as a non-myeloablative conditioning strategy for the treatment of
158 r bone-marrow transplantation after standard myeloablative conditioning therapy for haematological ma
159  treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia after myeloablative conditioning therapy.
160 alyses were limited to patients who received myeloablative conditioning therapy.
161 achieve this permissive state without toxic, myeloablative conditioning, thus bringing this approach
162                 Younger patients may receive myeloablative conditioning to mitigate relapse risk asso
163 emias or myelodysplastic syndrome undergoing myeloablative conditioning to receive either Orca-T with
164 thymocyte globulin (ATG) in the setting of a myeloablative conditioning transplantation remains contr
165                                          Non-myeloablative conditioning typically results in donor-de
166 ettings of heightened clinical risk that use myeloablative conditioning, unrelated donor (URD), and m
167 ce can be established in the absence of host myeloablative conditioning using a peripheral transplant
168 ective study shows that final outcomes after myeloablative conditioning using IV Bu/Cy were not stati
169 3 x 10(9) cells per L [IQR 29.75-180.00] for myeloablative conditioning vs 160 x 10(9) cells per L [9
170                                              Myeloablative conditioning was used in 80%, and in vivo
171 oretroviral vectors in animals that received myeloablative conditioning, we observed the complete dis
172 ral load, receipt of high-dose steroids, and myeloablative conditioning were associated with prolonge
173     High viral load, high-dose steroids, and myeloablative conditioning were associated with prolonge
174 cal hematopoietic cell transplantation using myeloablative conditioning were euthanized within 2 week
175                The effects on GVHD following myeloablative conditioning were independent of CD8(+) T
176 reatment of sickle cell disease has involved myeloablative conditioning with associated cytopenias an
177 or unrelated donor were randomly assigned to myeloablative conditioning with fractionated 12 Gy TBI a
178 or unrelated donor were randomly assigned to myeloablative conditioning with fractionated 12 Gy TBI a
179 ore the exa-cel infusion, patients underwent myeloablative conditioning with pharmacokinetically dose
180 nd antithymocyte globulin (ATG; 90 mg/kg) or myeloablative conditioning with total body irradiation (
181 nts receiving nonmyeloablative compared with myeloablative conditioning, with the exception of lessen

 
Page Top