ライフサイエンスコーパス: graft-versus-leukemia

1 alloreactive effect might also contribute to graft-versus-leukemia.

2 plications for graft-versus-host disease and graft-versus-leukemia.

3 cyte infusion (DLI) has been used to enhance graft-versus-leukemia activity after BMT, but the effect

4 ustrate the potential to selectively enhance graft-versus-leukemia activity by the adoptive transfer

5 These findings support a role for NK cell graft-versus-leukemia activity modulated by NK cell rece

6 versus-host disease, whether it would confer graft-versus-leukemia activity were raised.

7 this fashion could be useful for preserving graft-versus-leukemia activity without causing GVHD.

8 than related HCT, suggesting more effective graft-versus-leukemia activity.

9 ound that IL-15 administration could enhance graft-versus-leukemia activity.

10 uce opportunistic infections and to increase graft-versus-leukemia activity.

11 an improved understanding of T-cell mediated graft versus leukemia and of antiviral responses is prov

12 d-party skin graft rejection; importantly, a graft-versus-leukemia assay showed that T cell activity

13 Curative effects of graft-versus-leukemia-based therapies such as donor lymp

14 , GVHD is not an obligatory correlate of the graft-versus-leukemia benefit or freedom from relapse af

15 ural killer (NK) cells, key effectors of the Graft versus Leukemia effect.

16 , while maintaining immunocompetence and the graft versus leukemia effect.

17 emonstrate which NK cell subsets mediate the graft versus leukemia effect.

18 vaccines represent a strategy to enhance the graft-versus-leukemia effect after allogeneic blood and

19 g the late establishment of a posttransplant graft-versus-leukemia effect and an overrepresentation o

20 ice with the advantages of possible stronger graft-versus-leukemia effect and expanding transplantati

21 outcomes, results of nonmyeloablative UCBT, graft-versus-leukemia effect and graft-versus-host disea

22 CML in chronic phase, its responsiveness to graft-versus-leukemia effect and the ability to monitor

23 nistered after BMT might induce or amplify a graft-versus-leukemia effect and thereby reduce the rela

24 e development of new strategies to enhance a graft-versus-leukemia effect and to decrease the inciden

25 The graft-versus-leukemia effect appeared effective, even in

26 risk of early relapse/progression before the graft-versus-leukemia effect being disproportionally lar

27 or lymphocyte transfusions indicate that the graft-versus-leukemia effect can be very powerful and to

28 at mediate graft-versus-host disease and the graft-versus-leukemia effect following stem cell transpl

29 A graft-versus-leukemia effect has been well documented to

30 apse risk, this analysis reveals an enhanced graft-versus-leukemia effect in acute leukemia patients

31 lapse responded, demonstrating a significant graft-versus-leukemia effect in CLL.

32 The graft-versus-leukemia effect is critical to the maintena

33 The immune-mediated graft-versus-leukemia effect is important to prevent rel

34 tation can eradicate the leukemia and that a graft-versus-leukemia effect makes a major contribution

35 The graft-versus-leukemia effect of allogeneic stem-cell tra

36 MDSC-IL-13 did not reduce the graft-versus-leukemia effect of donor T cells.

37 monstration that an immunologically mediated graft-versus-leukemia effect plays a central role in del

38 e after allografting; the mechanism for this graft-versus-leukemia effect remains speculative.

39 re has been a corresponding reduction in the graft-versus-leukemia effect so that any decrease in GVH

40 The graft-versus-leukemia effect was initially considered to

41 Although the graft-versus-leukemia effect was predicted from animal e

42 cross the placenta and might confer a potent graft-versus-leukemia effect when cord blood (CB) is use

43 r immune reconstitution and a quite powerful graft-versus-leukemia effect with a low incidence of gra

44 ne response to these antigens may potentiate graft-versus-leukemia effect without accompanying graft-

45 This approach permits us to explore the graft-versus-leukemia effect without the toxicity of mye

46 Through an immune-mediated graft-versus-leukemia effect, allogeneic hematopoietic s

47 nefit, the value of purging, the presence of graft-versus-leukemia effect, and the timing of transpla

48 elapse due to the lack of an immune-mediated graft-versus-leukemia effect, as occurs in the allogenei

49 al killer lymphocytes may play a role in the graft-versus-leukemia effect, attention is focusing incr

50 In addition to providing a graft-versus-leukemia effect, donor T cells are critical

51 e immune system will allow us to improve the graft-versus-leukemia effect, improve engraftment, and d

52 inally, T-bet(-/-) T cells had a compromised graft-versus-leukemia effect, which could be essentially

53 cell dose on relapse may represent a delayed graft-versus-leukemia effect.

54 due to allogeneic disparities enhancing the graft-versus-leukemia effect.

55 n clinical trials while maintaining a robust graft-versus-leukemia effect.

56 ct of CMV infection has been reported on the graft-versus-leukemia effect.

57 hematologic diseases, with an often critical graft-versus-leukemia effect.

58 a means of decreasing GVHD while retaining a graft-versus-leukemia effect.

59 egies to predict a dominant unit and enhance graft-versus-leukemia effect.

60 r adult recipients or an effective level of "graft-versus-leukemia" effect.

61 ion for HLA-matched HCT may achieve superior graft versus leukemia effects, lower risk for relapse, a

62 Despite observed graft-versus-leukemia effects after stem cell transplant

63 Whether such differences will compromise graft-versus-leukemia effects and disease-free survival

64 as GVHD prophylaxis, Tregs potently suppress graft-versus-leukemia effects and so may be most appropr

65 ractions between HLA-C and KIR might promote Graft-versus-Leukemia effects following transplantation.

66 g the beneficial graft-versus-tumor (GVT) or graft-versus-leukemia effects from graft-versus-host dis

67 new immunotherapeutic approach to separating graft-versus-leukemia effects from GvHD.

68 DR15 on graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and graft-versus-leukemia effects in HLA-matched allogeneic

69 ells was associated with decreased cGVHD and graft-versus-leukemia effects in recipients of allogenei

70 ecipients was strikingly advantageous in the graft-versus-leukemia effects of delayed donor lymphocyt

71 of allogeneic cells and they rely largely on graft-versus-leukemia effects rather than high-dose cyto

72 The regimens rely largely on graft-versus-leukemia effects rather than high-dose ther

73 CLL is susceptible to graft-versus-leukemia effects, and allogeneic HCT after

74 d fludarabine, relying almost exclusively on graft-versus-leukemia effects, can result in long-term r

75 al in a mouse model of aGVHD while retaining graft-versus-leukemia effects, unveiling a novel therape

76 f NK-cell-dependent in vivo cytotoxicity and graft-versus-leukemia effects.

77 ls is crucial for promoting NK cell-mediated graft-versus-leukemia effects.

78 tion and expansion in vivo, while preserving graft-versus-leukemia effects.

79 of human GVHD while ensuring conservation of graft-versus-leukemia effects.

80 e, which may have important implications for graft-versus-leukemia effects.

81 K) cells can enhance engraftment and mediate graft-versus-leukemia following allogeneic hematopoietic

82 cells, providing a basis for separating the graft-versus-leukemia from graft-versus-host reactions.

83 donor T cells displayed a slight decrease in graft versus leukemia (GVL) activity.

84 Strategies to control GVHD while maintaining graft versus leukemia (GVL) include herpes simplex virus

85 ), or graft rejection, but also a beneficial graft versus leukemia (GVL) response.

86 To confirm that the role of TNF-alpha in graft versus leukemia (GVL) was due to effects on donor

87 H) disease (GVHD) is usually associated with graft versus leukemia (GVL), GVL can occur in the absenc

88 Nonetheless, graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) activity (measured against 3

89 st DDX3Y have the potential to contribute to graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) activity after female into m

90 adicate chemorefractory leukemia through the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) activity of donor T cells.

91 f direct LPS antagonism on GVHD severity and graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) activity.

92 -versus-host disease (GVHD) while preserving graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) activity.

93 uppress GVHD without loss of the benefits of graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) activity.

94 protective statin effect, without impacting graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) activity.

95 onor APCs were not required for CD8-mediated graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) against a mouse model of chr

96 Graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) against chronic-phase chroni

97 Generation of T cells endowed with graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) and depleted of graft-versus

98 selectively depleted transplants to evaluate graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) and survival are warranted.

99 d leukemia (CML) is exquisitely sensitive to graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) because patients relapsing a

100 We postulate that ibrutinib augments the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) benefit through a T-cell-med

101 Whereas graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) can occur in the absence of

102 d Wilms tumor antigen (WT1) contributes to a graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect after allogeneic stem

103 FTY slightly impaired but did not abrogate a graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect against C1498, a myel

104 ed by Y-chromosome genes may contribute to a graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect and to graft-versus-h

105 The graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect associated with allog

106 We have attempted to improve the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect by generating allores

107 A graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect has been considered a

108 The graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect in allogeneic hematop

109 Antigens implicated in the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect in chronic myeloid le

110 , we investigated whether IL-18 can maintain graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect in this context.

111 host disease (GVHD) with preservation of the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect is a crucial step to

112 rsus-host disease (GVHD) without loss of the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect is the holy grail of

113 curing hematologic malignancies is due to a graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect mediated by donor T c

114 The graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect mediated by the allog

115 The graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect of donor cells (again

116 HSCT) commonly results from the failure of a graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect to eradicate minimal

117 eneic BM transplantation (BMT) relies on the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect to eradicate residual

118 we address various maneuvers to optimize the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect while preventing graf

119 nctionally defined T-cell subsets mediated a graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect with reduced graft-ve

120 age between GVHD toxicity and the beneficial graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect, as well as the impai

121 The intrinsic graft-versus-leukemia (GvL) effect, however, is the desi

122 The graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect, mediated by donor T

123 resumed that allogeneic T cells mediate this graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect, the influence of DLI

124 lls would induce less GVHD while sparing the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

125 tricted immune response or a cancer-specific graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

126 for antileukemia activity, resulting in the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

127 nsplantation is a clear demonstration of the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

128 ve investigated whether IL-11 can maintain a graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

129 disease (GVHD) while preserving a beneficial graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

130 ic T-lymphocyte (CTL) activity and preserved graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects after allogeneic BMT

131 rs than their cycling counterparts; however, graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects after allogeneic ste

132 We show here that donor CD8-dependent graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects against EL4 (H-2(b))

133 The graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects and graft-versus-hos

134 oles in graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects following bone marro

135 tively prevents GVHD while preserving strong graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects in allogeneic and xe

136 Importantly, IFN-gamma enhances graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects in both models.

137 intensive chemoradiotherapy and from potent graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects mediated by donor im

138 donor leukocyte infusions (DLIs) can induce graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects without graft-versus

139 ective GVHD prophylaxis that does not impair graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects.

140 to lack of T-lymphocyte mediated allogeneic graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects.

141 7 cells are noncytolytic and fail to mediate graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects.

142 cells lacking B7-H3 are capable of providing graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects.

143 om those that are tumor reactive and mediate graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects.

144 mediate graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) is a fundamental question in

145 tion of a profound donor lymphocyte-mediated graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) or graft-versus-tumor (GVT)

146 e donor cytotoxic responses are critical for graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) preservation.

147 lant donor have been used to induce a direct graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) reaction in patients with re

148 Donor leukocyte infusion (DLI) can induce graft-versus-leukemia (GvL) reactions in patients with c

149 nent role in the graft-versus-host (GVH) and graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) reactions.

150 get antigens for graft-versus-host (GvH) and graft-versus-leukemia (GvL) reactivities.

151 hematopoietic graft-versus-host (LH-GVH) and graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) reactivities.

152 , recognize and eliminate leukemic cells via graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) reactivity, and transfer of

153 nor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) can experience graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) reactivity, with a lower ris

154 merism and can be correlated with associated graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) reactivity.

155 Graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) response after allogeneic bo

156 d GI tract barrier function, and a preserved graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) response.

157 ucidate the antigenic basis of the effective graft-versus-leukemia (GvL) responses associated with DL

158 -) T cells were capable of generating robust graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) responses in vivo, as well a

159 e (GVHD) but do not contribute to beneficial graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) responses, as reported by Ga

160 In graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) responses, the cellular subs

161 tiating graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and graft-versus-leukemia (GVL), and separation of GVL from

162 in both graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and graft-versus-leukemia (GVL).

163 t tissues or sites of leukemic infiltration (graft-versus-leukemia [GVL]) is likely mediated by chemo

164 a good response against the malignant cells (graft-versus-leukemia [GVL]), it also leads to the devel

165 ly associated with an antileukemia reaction (graft-versus-leukemia, GVL).

166 opoietic stem-cell transplantation induces a graft-versus-leukemia immune response (GVL).

167 combinatorial immunotherapy might potentiate graft-versus-leukemia in patients.

168 ower incidence of graft-versus-host disease, graft-versus-leukemia is preserved.

169 , Fn14 blockade showed no negative effect on graft-versus-leukemia/lymphoma (GVL) activity.

170 ogic malignancies due to the well-recognized graft-versus-leukemia/lymphoma (GVL) effect that is medi

171 tempting to capture this approach to achieve graft-versus-leukemia/lymphoma (GVL) effects without GVH

172 onstitution and reduce donor T-cell-mediated graft-versus-leukemia/lymphoma (GVL) effects, derived fr

173 ly been shown to reduce GVHD while retaining graft-versus-leukemia/lymphoma (GVL) responses.

174 l transplantation (HSCT), but the potency of graft-versus-leukemia mediated by naturally reconstituti

175 ic system, we have proposed that the desired graft-versus-leukemia or graft-versus-lymphoma effect ca

176 tem-cell transplantation can induce curative graft-versus-leukemia reactions in patients with hematol

177 immune conditions and cancer, as well as for graft-versus-leukemia reactions in settings of allogenei

178 r cell or cytokine administration to enhance graft-versus-leukemia reactions to reduce relapse.

179 sulting in nonspecific graft-versus-host and graft-versus-leukemia reactions, there is also the possi

180 To identify immunological targets of the graft-versus-leukemia response (GVL) after DLI, we used

181 iller-cell receptors may explain the loss of graft-versus-leukemia response and extramedullary AML re

182 e is to devise strategies for separating the graft-versus-leukemia response from graft-versus-host di

183 The chimerism or the beneficial graft-versus-leukemia response remained unaffected.

184 In addition, Stat5b-CA TG Teffs retained a graft-versus-leukemia response.

185 are targets of graft-versus-host disease and graft-versus-leukemia responses after allogeneic human l

186 seven CML patients with clinically apparent graft-versus-leukemia responses after DLI.

187 currently known regarding the association of graft-versus-leukemia responses and graft-versus-host di

188 When possible, graft-versus-leukemia responses are highlighted in the a

189 CRKL-deficient T cells resulted in efficient graft-versus-leukemia responses with minimal GVHD.

190 dox whereby GVH-reactive T cells can mediate graft-versus-leukemia responses without inducing GVHD in

191 re the main targets of graft-versus-host and graft-versus-leukemia responses, we tested the hypothesi

192 ed to increase our understanding of GVHD and graft-versus-leukemia responses, which will greatly impr

193 ion, these studies demonstrated evidence for graft-versus-leukemia responses.

194 received Pdl1-/- donor cells did not affect graft-versus-leukemia responses.

195 resent prospective immunological targets for graft-versus-leukemia therapy.