ライフサイエンスコーパス: related donor

1 and 39.0%, respectively (62.0% and 41.5% for related donors).

2 mochromatosis patients vs 1.6% of non-health-related donors).

3 ic stem cell transplant from her HLA-matched related donor.

4 at 5 years as that of a graft from a living related donor.

5 igible for transplant but without a suitable related donor.

6 e from a cadaver, and 14% were from a living-related donor.

7 d an HLA-identical or one-antigen-mismatched related donor.

8 e: the haploidentical, partially mismatched, related donor.

9 matopoietic stem cell transplantation from a related donor.

10 oietic-cell transplant do not have a matched related donor.

11 and had an available 8/8 or 7/8 HLA-matched related donor.

12 nonhuman leukocyte antigen identical living-related donor.

13 ls with leukemia or lymphoma and no suitable related donor.

14 fully human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched related donor.

15 cent of patients had unrelated or mismatched related donors.

16 y graft survival rates equivalent to that of related donors.

17 We performed six SPKs from living-related donors.

18 ed unrelated donors and partially mismatched related donors.

19 ction and limit of quantitation of 0.29% for related donors.

20 r concerns are important to potential living related donors.

21 n be cured by stem cell transplantation from related donors.

22 be the same as the standards for emotionally related donors.

23 oth transplant patients and potential living related donors.

24 is patients and 50 079 (95.1%) as non-health-related donors.

25 arrow transplantation (alloBMT) from matched related donors.

26 and human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-mismatched related donors.

27 ved grafts from unrelated donors and 14 from related donors.

28 h acquired aplastic anemia who have matched, related donors.

29 ge-related decline that may be more rapid in related donors.

30 (HCT) from unrelated donors as compared with related donors.

31 d donors to levels comparable to HLA-matched related donors.

32 to optimize the selection of haploidentical related donors.

33 uitability criteria for paediatric and adult related donors.

34 t recurrence risk and screening biologically related donors.

35 d to better outcomes after partially matched related donors.

36 the likelihood of depression diagnosis among related donors.

37 erved to be equivalent between unrelated and related donors.

38 om HLA-haploidentical and 3 from HLA-matched related donors.

39 k of complications, even with haploidentical related donors.

40 I], 1.08-1.74) after donor nephrectomy among related donors.

41 nificant among white but not among non-white related donors.

42 aHR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.28-3.55; P=0.003) among related donors.

43 ing human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-mismatched related donors.

44 loBMT and increase the use of HLA-mismatched related donors.

45 Significantly fewer black children had related donors.

46 ipients of 50% segmental grafts from living, related donors?

47 tched unrelated donors versus haploidentical related donors (1.22, 0.65-2.27; p=0.98).

48 ants from non-sibling donors: haploidentical related donors (1.43, 0.81-2.50; p=0.21) or mismatched u

49 hed sibling donors, 137 [15%] haploidentical related donors, 111 [12%] matched unrelated donors, and

50 Forty-two patients (pts) (65%) had match related donors, 18 (27%) match unrelated, 1 (1.5%) misma

51 pheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) from matched-related donors, 2 received PBSCs from matched-unrelated

52 79 (P < .0001) with 2-HLA-antigen-mismatched related donors, 2.11 (P < .0001) with HLA-matched unrela

53 mochromatosis patients (2.0%) and non-health-related donors(3.1%) as was the overall prevalence of po

54 43 (P < .0001) with 1-HLA-antigen-mismatched related donors, 3.79 (P < .0001) with 2-HLA-antigen-mism

55 and 12 received HLA-identical marrow from a related donor; 3 of the recipients of haploidentical mar

56 8) after transplantation from haploidentical related donors, 37 months (23-60) after transplantation

57 ho received a transplant from haploidentical related donors (5.30, 3.17-8.86; p<0.0001), matched unre

58 rence was observed in HCT recipients of both related donors (79% vs 39%; P = .001) and unrelated dono

59 hemochromatosis patients than in non-health-related donors (83.5% vs 76.5%; P =.03).

60 Unlike closely related donor-acceptor control compounds showing dual em

61 and photophysical properties of a series of related donor-acceptor-donor oligomers incorporating the

62 em-cell transplantation (SCT) from a matched related donor after myeloablative conditioning is the pr

63 dults who were undergoing SCT from a matched related donor after myeloablative or reduced-intensity c

64 te antigen-mismatched, haploidentical living-related donors after modified nonmyeloablative condition

65 Among biologically related donors aged <35, 35-49, and >=50 years, the numb

66 ted with postdonation diabetes only in black related donors (aHR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.04-9.98; P=0.04).

67 itability for unrelated donors, criteria for related donors allow for more discretion and vary betwee

68 9% of cases (34.5% immune-compromised, 14.4% related-donor), although nonirradiated components were t

69 the variation in willingness to be a living related donor, although race contributed most to the var

70 Recipients of matched related donor and matched unrelated donor grafts had sim

71 In multivariate analysis, HLA-matched related donor and prophylaxis with cyclosporine A and me

72 Forty-two patients had related donors and 34 had unrelated donors.

73 78 had human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched related donors and 39 had HLA-matched unrelated donors.

74 ng centers, 90% said they accept emotionally related donors and 60% said they actually encourage this

75 d from human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched related donors and cryopreserved.

76 ents of first kidney transplants (six living related donors and eight cadavers).

77 practice patterns of evaluation and care of related donors and recipients are not well described.

78 21 HLA-matched related-donor and 35 HLA-matched unrelated-donor transpl

79 29 were ex vivo reduced size, 33 were living-related donor, and 36 were in situ split-liver allograft

80 yped 286 patients; 99 patients had a matched related donor, and 76 patients received transplantations

81 cal cord blood (UCB), haploidentical (haplo)-related donor, and mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) are

82 red outcomes of HLA-identical sibling, other related donor, and unrelated donor transplantation for W

83 Twelve (28%) received grafts from related donors, and 31 (72%) received grafts from unrela

84 cal sibling donors, 52% (37%-65%) with other related donors, and 71% (58%-80%) with unrelated donors

85 nors with a history of smoking, biologically related donors, and at centers with higher total living

86 to 50%, an increased recurrence with living-related donors, and the rarity of graft loss due to recu

87 tched adult unrelated donors, haploidentical related donors, and umbilical cord blood stem cell produ

88 s of allogeneic transplant, in which matched related donors are available.

89 for patients who do not have an HLA-matched related donor available for bone marrow transplantation.

90 samples from 404 patients with MDS and their related donors before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell

91 (P < 0.01) for cadaveric donor versus living related donor, blacks versus whites, age >12 versus <12

92 ar to multi-institutional studies of matched related donor BMT, and this approach appears to be curat

93 ical cord blood (dUCB) or HLA-haploidentical related donor bone marrow (Haplo-marrow) transplantation

94 ewed 196 patients undergoing T-cell depleted related donor bone marrow transplantation (BMT) between

95 For the 83 patients receiving a matched related donor bone marrow transplantation (BMT), the 3-y

96 gen (HLA)-mismatched, or HLA-haploidentical, related donor bone marrow transplantation (haploBMT) has

97 n of cord blood and bone marrow from matched related donors; both had successful engraftment and corr

98 ilitate selection of the best haploidentical-related donor by calculating disease-free survival based

99 , medical management of recipients and their related donors by the same provider is common, a practic

100 Those lacking a related donor can receive either autologous or histocomp

101 ransplants from phenotypically HLA-identical related donors can be carried after Cy alone and results

102 Intestinal transplants from living-related donors can be lifesaving for selected patients w

103 Consistent with these results, emotionally related donors contribute only a small fraction of all k

104 haemopoietic stem cells from an HLA-matched related donor does not seem to improve the clinical outc

105 the process they use for living, emotionally related donors, except that the full work-up would have

106 We investigated the impact of two age-related donor factors, hypertension and calculated creat

107 The first graft from a living-related donor failed and was followed by a second succes

108 ncies who were given grafts from HLA-matched related donors following conditioning with 2 Gy total bo

109 L) in chronic phase (CP) who lack a suitable related donor for marrow transplantation include hydroxy

110 American living kidney donors and for living-related donors for African American recipients.

111 uation and germ line testing to patients and related donors for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell tr

112 report here on two cases in which the living-related donors for children with Alagille's syndrome had

113 In treatment decisions, genetic screening of related donors for hematopoietic stem cell transplantati

114 m of family members who are potential living-related donors for patients with this condition.

115 ation, the vast majority (81%) prefer living related donors for pediatric recipients.

116 T)/kidney transplantation from HLA-identical related donors for the treatment of hematological malign

117 transplants from unrelated or HLA-mismatched related donors from 1982 to 1994.

118 rst report of the successful use of a living-related donor graft for an orthotopic liver transplant t

119 The use of living-related donor grafts has produced excellent results in t

120 Related donor haploidentical hematopoietic cell transpla

121 In the United States, the use of related donors has been well established in most centers

122 uced" livers, split liver grafts, and living-related donors has provided more organs for pediatric pa

123 Intestinal transplants using living-related donors have rarely been attempted, and the surgi

124 d 73 myeloablative recipients of HLA-matched related donor HCT, using the National Cancer Institute (

125 (GVHD) after reduced-intensity conditioning, related donor hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT).

126 er matched unrelated, related, or mismatched related donor hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (H

127 Haploidentical-related donor HSCT performed 2 months after liver transp

128 Transplantation of marrow from a related donor is a life-saving and life-sustaining treat

129 scents with AML in remission, when a matched related donor is available.

130 allogeneic stem cell transplantation using a related donor is envisioned.

131 large potential contribution of emotionally related donors is ever to be realized, transplant center

132 f polyomavirus-specific T cells from healthy related donors is feasible, and these cells can be safel

133 cell transplantation from HLA-haploidentical related donors is increasingly used to treat hematologic

134 We present a case of living, related-donor kidney transplantation during the first tr

135 A related donor liver transplant may be a justifiable appr

136 Living-related donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an accepte

137 re obtained from cadaveric (n=23) and living-related donor (LRD) (n=10) liver transplants before and

138 In contrast, for living related donor (LRD) grafts there was no significant chan

139 barked on a study of DBMC infusion in living-related donor (LRD) kidney transplant recipients.

140 comitantly transplanted recipients of living-related donor (LRD) kidneys and donor marrow infusions g

141 we make thorough attempts to locate a living related donor (LRD) or a living unrelated donor (LURD) b

142 A successful kidney transplant from a living-related donor (LRD) remains the most effective renal rep

143 fter transplantation of 13 CAD and 12 living-related donor (LRD) renal allografts were examined by us

144 CAN in recipients of cadaveric (CAD), living-related donor (LRD), and living-unrelated donor (LURD) t

145 tes and iliac crest bone marrow of 11 living-related-donor (LRD) renal transplant recipients, who had

146 6 patients receiving unrelated or mismatched related donor marrow had a 50% 3-year actuarial DFS.

147 timing remission induction/consolidation and related donor marrow transplantation or high-dose cytara

148 g HLA-matched sibling donors, haploidentical related donors, matched unrelated donors, or mismatched

149 wenty-one patients underwent DLI for matched related donor (MD)-persistent disease or relapse, and 15

150 Transplants from related donors mismatched for one or more HLA loci requi

151 lated donor and less favorable in mismatched related donor (MMRD) HSCT (P < .001).

152 tched unrelated donors (MUDs) and mismatched related donors (MMRDs) in patients with primary immunode

153 In the absence of a suitable matched related donor, most patients will be able to find an alt

154 VHD) occurs in approximately 35% of matched, related donor (MRD) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transp

155 ) from human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matched related donor (MRD) and matched unrelated donors (MUD) p

156 ll transplantation (HCT) have an HLA-matched related donor (MRD) available to them.

157 Outcomes are excellent following matched-related donor (MRD) HCT, leading to significantly expand

158 Matched related donor (MRD) hematopoietic stem cell transplantat

159 blood (UCB) transplantations than in matched related donor (MRD) transplantations.

160 old in first remission (CR1) with a matched related donor (MRD) underwent an allogeneic stem cell tr

161 ith an human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched related donor (MRD, n = 204), HLA allele-matched unrelat

162 first complete remission (CR1), from matched related donors (MRDs).

163 Grafts were from matched related donors (MRDs, 56), matched unrelated donors (MUD

164 atched unrelated donors (n = 18) and matched related donors (n = 11).

165 Patients with indolent disease and related donors (n = 26) had 3-year estimated OS and PFS

166 splantation (allo-HSCT) and their respective related donors (n = 42 donor-recipient pairs).

167 hed unrelated (n = 14, 31.1%), or mismatched related donors (n = 6, 13.4%).

168 In transplantations from HLA-matched related donors (n = 82), younger patients (</= v > 14 ye

169 us leukemia (CML) relapse in 283 consecutive related-donor (n = 177) and unrelated-donor (n = 106) al

170 urgery, splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, and procedures considered too

171 opexy), splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, gastric banding for morbid ob

172 ), where a single infusion of haploidentical related donor NK cells was given plus either IL-2 or N-8

173 Here, we test haploidentical, related-donor NK-cell infusions in a nontransplantation

174 an 16 years, non-white ethnicity, absence of related donor, obesity, white blood cell count more than

175 d a human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical, related donor or a donor disparate at a single class I o

176 patients underwent HSCT from an HLA-matched related donor or a matched or 7/8 mismatched (i.e., mism

177 the presence of a variant in the patient and related donor or for those seen previously only as germ

178 one marrow transplant from an HLA-identical, related donor or immunosuppressive therapy.

179 were HLA-matched (40%) and -mismatched (10%) related donors or HLA-matched (36.7%) and -mismatched (1

180 peripheral blood stem cells from HLA-matched related-donors or HLA-9/10 or HLA-10/10 matched unrelate

181 Living related donor organs had a significantly better 5-yr sur

182 transplants for severe aplastic anemia from related donors other than HLA genotypically matched sibl

183 indicated significantly lower survival using related donors other than HLA-identical siblings (P =.00

184 URD, umbilical cord blood, or haploidentical-related donors; outcomes are either comparable or relati

185 row transplants without T-cell ablation from related donors over an 18-year period.

186 urce (P = .003), the availability of matched related donors (P = .045), and the use of conditioning (

187 past year compared with 49.1% of non-health-related donors (P<.001).

188 Five consecutive living related donor pediatric renal transplants were reviewed

189 ave a readily available partially mismatched related donor (PMRD).

190 identical or 1-antigen-mismatched relatives (related donors [RDs]).

191 CML survivors who received an HC transplant (related donors [RDs], n = 150; unrelated donors [URDs],

192 unrelated and two HLA haploidentical living-related donor recipient pairs, whereas unidirectional re

193 We obtained blood samples from 16 related donor-recipient pairs at a median of 33.8 years

194 ssociations with the risk of chronic GVHD in related donor-recipient pairs but not in unrelated donor

195 e tested for replication in other cohorts of related donor-recipient pairs.

196 were higher in cadaveric donor versus living related donor recipients (15.7 + 2.8 vs. 8.8 + 1.3, resp

197 Whereas none of the HAT-treated living related donor recipients had a rejection episode, 6 of 1

198 increased risk of posttransplant relapse for related-donor recipients included prolonged interval bet

199 Related-donor recipients with posttransplant chronic gra

200 Twenty-two of 165 related-donor recipients with stable or advanced disease

201 or prevention of GVHD in patients undergoing related-donor reduced-intensity conditioning haemopoieti

202 ination with standard GVHD prophylaxis after related-donor reduced-intensity conditioning haemopoieti

203 or human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatched related donor (relative risk [RR] = 4.1), T-cell depleti

204 hamide specifically after SCT from a matched related donor remain uncertain, and effects in the conte

205 one haplotype matched recipients of living, related donor renal allografts selected to control for d

206 These data suggest that living-related donor renal transplantation with steroid-free ta

207 nducted in recipients of cadaveric or living-related donor renal transplants.

208 For patients with or without a related donor, respective 5-year disease-free survival w

209 ceived whole livers, and two received living-related donor right liver lobes.

210 e-marrow transplantation from haploidentical related donors sharing at least one HLA A, B, or DR alle

211 her the medical standards for nonemotionally related donors should be the same as the standards for e

212 in clinical islet transplantation and living-related donor solid organ transplantation.

213 arrow transplantation (BMT) based on matched related donor status (n = 181) or randomization to autol

214 transplantation may give similar results to related-donor stem-cell transplantation when extended ph

215 Investigations of the radical anions of related donor-substituted 1,1,4,4-tetracyanobuta-1,3-die

216 (HLA)- haplotype mismatched (haploidentical) related donors, suggesting that this procedure makes hap

217 ow from an unrelated donor or HLA-mismatched related donor, the risk of developing lymphoproliferativ

218 hich has increased the use of HLA-mismatched related donors to levels comparable to HLA-matched relat

219 The contribution of related donors to the globally rising number of allogene

220 Fifteen related-donor transplant recipients relapsed within 5 ye

221 in lymphoma, the data support haploidentical related donor transplantation over UCB transplantation.

222 In a discovery set (n=307 receiving related donor transplantation), overall survival, relaps

223 In cases of related donor transplantation, HLA compatibility may be

224 atopoietic stem cell (HSC) donor, mismatched related-donor transplantation (MMRDT) or unrelated-donor

225 unger patients and recipients of HLA-matched related donor transplantations who have cytogenetic abno

226 lization of cord blood and partially matched related donor transplants have ensured a donor for essen

227 nt have greater immunogenetic disparity than related donor transplants, these transplants are associa

228 myelodysplastic syndrome, transplanted from related donors, unrelated donors (URD), or unrelated cor

229 ase according to the transplant type (living related donor vs. cadaver, P=NS).

230 16.3% at 730 days (7.2% for patients who had related donors vs 34.1% for those with unrelated donors,

231 T) on the basis of availability of a matched related donor was also evaluated.

232 marrow donors were HLA-identical siblings, 1 related donor was mismatched at the DR locus, and 1 unre

233 neic stem-cell transplantation from matched, related donors was associated with improved outcomes in

234 arrow transplantation (BMT) from HLA-matched related donors, we found no statistically significant di

235 nts over 25 000/muL, indolent histology, and related donors were associated with improved survival.

236 m cells from human leukocyte antigen-matched related donors were randomized to receive 10 microg/kg p

237 lotype-matched renal transplants from living related donors were studied to determine the association

238 xtremely low TRM and GVHD, even when matched related donors were unavailable.

239 size grafts, of which three were from living-related donors, were used.

240 d in patients with untransformed disease and related donors, whereas patients with transformed diseas

241 Sections on the suitability of related donors who would not qualify as unrelated donors

242 hylaxis after transplantation from a matched related donor with either reduced-intensity or myeloabla

243 olonged survival after successful BMT from a related donor with homozygous normal enzyme activity.

244 egimen in conjunction with stem cells from a related donor with one fully mismatched HLA haplotype.

245 from HLA single-haplotype mismatched living related donors, with the use of a nonmyeloablative prepa

246 ergoing TCD transplantation from HLA-matched related donors without the use of ATG.

247 vercoming genetic disparity using mismatched related donors, would be feasible and increase access to