ライフサイエンスコーパス: myeloablative

1 munized to alloantigens persisted even after myeloablative (1000 cGy) TBI and were able to prevent en

2 Conditioning regimens were myeloablative (9) and reduced intensity (5).

3 ed for standard therapeutic and hypothetical myeloablative administered activities.

4 ever, adult patients have been excluded from myeloablative allo-HSCT because of anticipated excess to

5 is of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after myeloablative allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (al

6 with patients with active AML who underwent myeloablative allogeneic HCT at our institution.

7 Conclusion Myeloablative allogeneic HCT recipients showed significa

8 Patients undergoing myeloablative allogeneic HCT were randomized before HCT

9 luated sexual function through 5 years after myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantat

10 ognitive impairment is well-recognized after myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantat

11 Myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transpl

12 Myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transpl

13 Myeloablative allogeneic HSCT (allo-HSCT) is curative bu

14 Non-myeloablative allogeneic HSCT after autologous HSCT is n

15 We studied 590 patients who underwent myeloablative allogeneic HSCT at our institution, and on

16 italization, to $200 000 (USD) or more for a myeloablative allogeneic procedure involving an unrelate

17 mens, and considered for patients undergoing myeloablative allogeneic SCT with TBI-based conditioning

18 ensus, based on cytogenetic risk, recommends myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT)

19 oup for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Non-Myeloablative Allogeneic stem cell transplantation in Mu

20 ted mortality restricted the use of standard myeloablative allogeneic stem-cell transplantation to a

21 ogous, 128 reduced-intensity allogeneic, 113 myeloablative allogeneic) underwent standardized neurops

22 Twenty-five patients underwent a myeloablative alloSCT, and 20 underwent a reduced-intens

23 goal of each approach is to deliver maximal myeloablative amounts of radioactivity within the tolera

24 for GVHD prophylaxis; 1245 patients received myeloablative and 737 received reduced intensity conditi

25 se (GVHD) prophylaxis; 104 patients received myeloablative and 88 received reduced intensity conditio

26 The development of non-myeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning regimen

27 ears to reduce the rate of acute GVHD in the myeloablative and reduced-intensity settings, when used

28 However, we recently showed that under myeloablative and reduced-intensity total body irradiati

29 allowing for the administration of otherwise myeloablative and toxic doses of chemotherapy and for re

30 ative, less than 2% (3/197) for dose-reduced myeloablative, and 13% (13/100) for intense myeloablativ

31 108 months was 15.8% (95% CI: 9.8-23.2) for myeloablative, and 6.5% (0.2-16.2) for RIC (NS).

32 Myeloablative anti-CD20 radioimmunotherapy (RIT) can del

33 address this question, we developed a 2-step myeloablative approach to haploidentical HSCT in which 2

34 One trial with non-myeloablative autologous haematopoietic stem cell transp

35 tients with multiple sclerosis following non-myeloablative autologous haematopoietic stem cell transp

36 Non-myeloablative autologous haemopoietic stem cell transpla

37 Myeloablative autologous hematopoietic stem cell transpl

38 Non-myeloablative autologous HSCT improves skin and pulmonar

39 mice following radiation exposure and after myeloablative BM transplantation.

40 cell doses that facilitate engraftment after myeloablative BMT without a discernable increase in the

41 dults with hematologic malignancies received myeloablative bone marrow conditioning followed by trans

42 of diseases where standard irradiation-based myeloablative bone marrow transplantation protocols may

43 Exposure to cisplatin combined with myeloablative carboplatin significantly increases risk.

44 es of 1061 patients who received single-unit myeloablative CB transplantation for leukemia or myelody

45 rely compromised hematopoietic recovery from myeloablative challenge and following bone marrow transp

46 OS), which is most commonly a consequence of myeloablative chemoirradiation or ingestion of pyrrolizi

47 Myeloablative chemoradiotherapy and immunomagnetically p

48 Patients received myeloablative chemotherapy (busulfan, cyclophosphamide,

49 n anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor, after myeloablative chemotherapy (melphalan, 140 mg per square

50 se cytarabine, and rituximab; and the use of myeloablative chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell resc

51 en activated comparing EA consolidation with myeloablative chemotherapy in this randomized trial in P

52 131I-MIBG with myeloablative chemotherapy is feasible and effective for

53 randomisation that addresses the efficacy of myeloablative chemotherapy supported by autologous stem-

54 High-risk neuroblastoma patients receive myeloablative chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell

55 hieving at least a partial response received myeloablative chemotherapy with PBSC rescue and radiatio

56 Myeloablative chemotherapy with stem cell transplantatio

57 are rapidly progressive; even with intensive myeloablative chemotherapy, relapse is common and almost

58 m assignment (N = 379) to consolidation with myeloablative chemotherapy, total-body irradiation, and

59 fatal liver injury that mainly occurs after myeloablative chemotherapy.

60 morbidities both in the nonmyeloablative and myeloablative cohorts had comparable NRM (P = .74), over

61 h ABO incompatibility (HR, 2.61; P=0.05) and myeloablative conditioning (HR, 4.17; P=0.047).

62 , 6 treatment categories were evaluated: (1) myeloablative conditioning (MA) with total body irradiat

63 However, studies directly comparing RIC to myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens are lacking.

64 Seven patients received busulfan-containing myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens.

65 stion of whether RIC should replace standard myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens.

66 Thirty-six patients received myeloablative conditioning (MAC), and 21 patients receiv

67 C) has shown superior outcomes compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC), making RIC-HSCT a viab

68 c stem-cell transplantation (allo-SCT) after myeloablative conditioning (MAC).

69 re few data comparing outcomes with RIC with myeloablative conditioning (MAC).

70 improved overall survival (OS) compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC).

71 uced-intensity conditioning (RIC) instead of myeloablative conditioning (MAC); however, the biology u

72 wever, in the subpopulation of patients with myeloablative conditioning (n=72), EASIX-GVHD did not pr

73 nrelated HSCT with MSC co-infusion after non-myeloablative conditioning (NMA).

74 ive hundred patients (38%) received standard myeloablative conditioning (SMC), and 833 (62%) received

75 ss effectiveness of allogeneic HSCT with non-myeloablative conditioning after autologous HSCT compare

76 also relatively resistant to both high-dose myeloablative conditioning and allogeneic graft-versus-t

77 Myeloablative conditioning and chronic graft-versus-host

78 fely and effectively combined with IV Bu/Flu myeloablative conditioning and confirms PTCy's efficacy

79 sted the hypothesis that patients undergoing myeloablative conditioning and haemopoietic cell transpl

80 3) using PTCy as sole GVHD prophylaxis after myeloablative conditioning and HLA-matched-related or -u

81 are difficult to find, and the toxicities of myeloablative conditioning are prohibitive for most adul

82 avenous busulfan and fludarabine (IV Bu/Flu) myeloablative conditioning as well as graft-versus-host

83 Myeloablative conditioning before bone marrow transplant

84 itic cells (DCs) after BMT in the setting of myeloablative conditioning but is persistent after nonmy

85 ukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome receiving myeloablative conditioning followed by a matched 10 of 1

86 ents older than 50 years of age (N = 47) and myeloablative conditioning for younger patients (N = 117

87 llogeneic transplantation using conventional myeloablative conditioning has been demonstrated, but th

88 genetically modify HSPCs without the need of myeloablative conditioning is relevant for a broader cli

89 high treatment-related mortality rates when myeloablative conditioning is used.

90 ic recovery is more likely to be achieved if myeloablative conditioning is used; additionally, they s

91 ng complete remission, the data suggest that myeloablative conditioning may not be required for succe

92 e that overexpression of TGF-beta1 following myeloablative conditioning post-BMT results in impaired

93 Standardized myeloablative conditioning produced a low incidence of t

94 Low-toxicity myeloablative conditioning recipients have better B-lymp

95 omized trials comparing nonmyeloablative and myeloablative conditioning regardless of disease status.

96 -intensity conditioning regimen (RIC) with a myeloablative conditioning regimen (MAC) before allogene

97 Most patients received a myeloablative conditioning regimen (n = 873; 87%); the r

98 87 IB-UCBT with 149 dUCBT recipients, after myeloablative conditioning regimen adjusting for the dif

99 outstanding results in children following a myeloablative conditioning regimen and a matched sibling

100 ) cord-blood transplantation after a uniform myeloablative conditioning regimen and immunoprophylaxis

101 uman T-lymphocyte immune globulin (ATG) in a myeloablative conditioning regimen for patients with acu

102 8 children with Hurler syndrome (HS) after a myeloablative conditioning regimen from 1995 to 2007.

103 The myeloablative conditioning regimen included busulfan, cy

104 transplants for acute leukemia, all given a myeloablative conditioning regimen, and with available a

105 marrow grafts from an unrelated donor and a myeloablative conditioning regimen.

106 seropositive donor if the patient receives a myeloablative conditioning regimen.

107 Most UCB recipients received a myeloablative conditioning regimen; most MMRDT recipient

108 , p=0.0020), reduced intensity compared with myeloablative conditioning regimens (HR 1.36, 1.10-1.68,

109 a, or myelodysplastic syndrome; 98% received myeloablative conditioning regimens 100% received T-repl

110 or busulfan (BuCy) are the most widely used myeloablative conditioning regimens for allotransplants.

111 Current myeloablative conditioning regimens for hematopoietic st

112 syndrome should receive busulfan-containing myeloablative conditioning regimens with caution.

113 's syndrome who received busulfan-containing myeloablative conditioning regimens, compared with non-G

114 HSCT from HLA-identical sibling donors after myeloablative conditioning regimens, mainly for hematolo

115 tients received T-replete grafts with mostly myeloablative conditioning regimens.

116 conditioning regimens and those who received myeloablative conditioning regimens.

117 Myeloablative conditioning represented 66% of transplant

118 Notably, though, myeloablative conditioning resulted in a reduced expansi

119 Myeloablative conditioning results in thymic epithelial

120 alyses were limited to patients who received myeloablative conditioning therapy.

121 thymocyte globulin (ATG) in the setting of a myeloablative conditioning transplantation remains contr

122 Non-myeloablative conditioning typically results in donor-de

123 ective study shows that final outcomes after myeloablative conditioning using IV Bu/Cy were not stati

124 3 x 10(9) cells per L [IQR 29.75-180.00] for myeloablative conditioning vs 160 x 10(9) cells per L [9

125 Myeloablative conditioning was used in 80%, and in vivo

126 ral load, receipt of high-dose steroids, and myeloablative conditioning were associated with prolonge

127 High viral load, high-dose steroids, and myeloablative conditioning were associated with prolonge

128 cal hematopoietic cell transplantation using myeloablative conditioning were euthanized within 2 week

129 The effects on GVHD following myeloablative conditioning were independent of CD8(+) T

130 s included cord blood or HLA-mismatched HCT, myeloablative conditioning, and acute graft-versus-host

131 After myeloablative conditioning, higher dominant unit total n

132 After myeloablative conditioning, KIR-L mismatch had no effect

133 conditioning compared with 78% and 50% after myeloablative conditioning, respectively.

134 ettings of heightened clinical risk that use myeloablative conditioning, unrelated donor (URD), and m

135 nts receiving nonmyeloablative compared with myeloablative conditioning, with the exception of lessen

136 l malignancies who cannot tolerate intensive myeloablative conditioning.

137 nditioned transplants and which require more myeloablative conditioning.

138 eral blood mononuclear cells (G-PBMCs) after myeloablative conditioning.

139 ormed in first complete remission (CR) after myeloablative conditioning.

140 4-6/6 HLA matched dUCB (n = 128) graft after myeloablative conditioning.

141 patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT after myeloablative conditioning.

142 s favoring reduced intensity conditioning or myeloablative conditioning.

143 res of 3 compared with patients who received myeloablative conditioning.

144 a (MDS) after nonmyeloablative compared with myeloablative conditioning.

145 T) with kidney transplantation following non-myeloablative conditioning.

146 etic cell transplantation following standard myeloablative conditioning.

147 ge, 0.8-15.5 years; mean, 7 years) following myeloablative conditioning.

148 ments and compared with LC-engraftment after myeloablative conditioning.

149 th seronegative donors, if they had received myeloablative conditioning.

150 ty and mortality associated with traditional myeloablative conditioning.

151 All but 8 patients received myeloablative conditioning; cyclosporine plus steroids w

152 'Non-myeloablative' conditioning regimens to achieve lymphocy

153 emia using RIC regimens with those receiving myeloablative-conditioning (MAC) regimens.

154 d with six cycles of induction chemotherapy, myeloablative consolidation, and radiation therapy to th

155 e incidence of neutrophil engraftment in 129 myeloablative dCBT recipients was 95% (95% confidence in

156 ntical but class I-disparate UCB graft after myeloablative dosages of busulfan, melphalan, and antith

157 on days -8 to -6]), and low-dose (50-72% of myeloablative dose) or targeted busulfan administration

158 f conditioning, we combined clofarabine with myeloablative doses of busulfan in a phase 1/2 study in

159 data suggest that clofarabine combined with myeloablative doses of busulfan is well tolerated, secur

160 Myeloablative doses of busulfan should not be used with

161 en for hematopoietic stem-cell transplant or myeloablative doses of radioimmunotherapy given in conju

162 ted and non-radiated newborns treated with a myeloablative drug before bone marrow transplantation.

163 y in remission compared with patients in the myeloablative group.

164 afety and clinical outcome of autologous non-myeloablative haemopoietic stem cell transplantation in

165 Autologous non-myeloablative haemopoietic stem cell transplantation is

166 he safety and tolerability of autologous non-myeloablative haemopoietic stem cell transplantation.

167 te marker for TNF-alpha in 438 recipients of myeloablative HCT before transplantation and at day 7 af

168 e studied 253 consecutive patients receiving myeloablative HCT for AML in CR1 (n = 183) or CR2 (n = 7

169 th increased risk of relapse and death after myeloablative HCT for AML in first morphologic CR, even

170 RP) before HCT in 271 patients who underwent myeloablative HCT for CML in first chronic phase.

171 s with a hematological malignancy to receive myeloablative HCT from an available 8/8-HLA matched URD.

172 e determined in 5929 patients who received a myeloablative HCT from an HLA-A-, HLA-B-, HLA-C-, HLA-DR

173 We conclude that matched sibling donor myeloablative HCT improves survival only for younger pat

174 Myeloablative HCT recipients had significantly lower ( P

175 ratified into 3 cohorts: patients undergoing myeloablative HCT with rhEPO to start on day (D)28, pati

176 zed, double-blind trial of ATLG in unrelated myeloablative HCT, the incorporation of ATLG did not imp

177 y for fine motor dexterity ( P < .001) after myeloablative HCT.

178 ng in patients who experienced relapse after myeloablative HCT.

179 Minimal residual disease (MRD) before myeloablative hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) i

180 High-dose myeloablative hematopoietic cell transplantation is beco

181 curative therapies are available other than myeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT);

182 impact of delirium during the acute phase of myeloablative hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (H

183 yelodysplastic syndrome who received a first myeloablative hematopoietic-cell transplant from an unre

184 ia or myelodysplastic syndrome who underwent myeloablative HLA-matched unrelated hematopoietic cell t

185 ction as single-agent GVHD prophylaxis after myeloablative, HLA-matched related (MRD), or HLA-matched

186 1, 2015, in the three clinical trials of non-myeloablative HPC transplantation at the National Instit

187 patients who are at risk for delirium during myeloablative HSCT and may enable clinical interventions

188 assess safety and efficacy of autologous non-myeloablative HSCT in a phase 2 trial compared with the

189 a malignancy who experience delirium during myeloablative HSCT showed impaired neurocognitive abilit

190 d combined kidney/bone marrow allografts and myeloablative immunosuppressive treatments.

191 FLT intensity differed significantly between myeloablative infusion before HSCT and subclinical HSC r

192 at any time tested, and normal recovery from myeloablative injury.

193 We found that myeloablative irradiation followed by bone marrow transp

194 It is necessary to employ myeloablative irradiation or chemotherapy to deplete the

195 C engraftment, the niche must be emptied via myeloablative irradiation or chemotherapy.

196 These results support the use of myeloablative IV-BU vs TBI-based conditioning regimens f

197 -MIBG to blood was 0.134 cGy/MBq, well below myeloablative levels in all patients.

198 fety and efficacy of two increased-intensity myeloablative lymphodepleting regimens.

199 reported after HLA-matched unrelated marrow myeloablative (MA) transplantations.

200 Preparative regimens included myeloablative (MA; N = 611), reduced-intensity (RI; N =

201 ients of allotransplants for DLBCL receiving myeloablative (MAC; n = 165), reduced intensity (RIC; n

202 lapse mortality, and compares favorably with myeloablative marrow allo-HSCT proposed to younger patie

203 Finally, using a minimally myeloablative mixed bone marrow chimerism approach, we d

204 Using a minimally myeloablative-mixed bone marrow chimerism approach, we f

205 unit umbilical cord blood (UCB) grafts after myeloablative (n = 155) or reduced intensity (n = 102) c

206 ) or marrow (n = 21) grafts following either myeloablative (n = 33) or reduced intensity (n = 130) co

207 eceived either nonmyeloablative (n = 125) or myeloablative (n = 452) allogeneic hematopoietic cell tr

208 a given either nonmyeloablative (n = 152) or myeloablative (n = 68) conditioning.

209 nsplantation with nonmyeloablative (n=23) or myeloablative (n=25) conditioning.

210 the liver for (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan in myeloablative NHL treatment regimens.

211 olerance induction is readily achieved after myeloablative or immune-depleting conditioning regardles

212 nofsky score of at least 60 receiving either myeloablative or non-myeloablative (or reduced intensity

213 eexisting inhibitory antibodies under either myeloablative or nonmyeloablative regimens.

214 Multiple retrospective studies using either myeloablative or reduced intensity conditioning have sho

215 (9) Should the transplantation be myeloablative or reduced intensity conditioning?

216 ) and 65.8% (52.2-72.2), respectively, after myeloablative or RIC (NS).

217 [CI]: 42.1-61.8) and 11.3% (1.6-21.2) after myeloablative or RIC, respectively (P < .0001) and that

218 ast 60 receiving either myeloablative or non-myeloablative (or reduced intensity) conditioning prepar

219 oduction and significantly decreased GVHD in myeloablative preclinical murine models of allogeneic HC

220 d were infused in a clinical setting after a myeloablative preparative regimen for stem cell transpla

221 All children were given a fully myeloablative preparative regimen.

222 eyond first chronic phase), not eligible for myeloablative preparative regimens due to older age or c

223 Thus, myeloablative pretransplant conditioning can be safely c

224 Among survivors, reduced-intensity or myeloablative pretransplantation conditioning was associ

225 unconditioned transplants in comparison with myeloablative procedures (81% vs 54%; P < .003), althoug

226 Myeloablative radioimmunotherapy using (131)I-tositumoma

227 The transplant regimen was a non-myeloablative regimen of cyclophosphamide (200 mg/kg) an

228 Autologous HSCT with a non-myeloablative regimen of cyclophosphamide and rATG with

229 In patients conditioned with a myeloablative regimen that contained busulfan (n=1131),

230 nonmyeloablative total body irradiation or a myeloablative regimen that required bone marrow transpla

231 A myeloablative regimen was used for conditioning in 77%.

232 A myeloablative regimen was used in 307 patients.

233 After a myeloablative regimen, 20 patients with hematologic mali

234 ts survived tail clipping when the 1100-cGy (myeloablative) regimen was used, 85.7% of recipients sur

235 per age for transplantation and suggest that myeloablative regimens may be considered in older patien

236 comparisons of patients treated with RIC and myeloablative regimens showed lower nonrelapse mortality

237 busulfan (Bu) are currently the most common myeloablative regimens used in allogeneic stem-cell tran

238 Patients excluded from myeloablative regimens were able to tolerate RIC regimen

239 Among patients receiving myeloablative regimens, 3-year probabilities of overall

240 myeloablative, and 13% (13/100) for intense myeloablative regimens, ie, those including total body i

241 conditioning compared with 45% and 24% with myeloablative regimens, respectively.

242 pective, randomized trials comparing RIC and myeloablative regimens.

243 nal evidence of a low relapse rate after non-myeloablative regimens.

244 eased, yielding OS rates similar to those of myeloablative regimens.

245 Dose-intense conditioning (DIC) (myeloablative) regimens for allogeneic stem cell transpl

246 differentiation patterns of these cells in a myeloablative rhesus macaque model.

247 Myeloablative RIT and ASCT is a safe and effective thera

248 The myeloablative Scleroderma Cyclophosphamide versus Transp

249 0 years by 120 cancer survivors who received myeloablative SCT and their case-matched controls.

250 lthy patients in their second decade after a myeloablative SCT for hematologic malignancy (median fol

251 ses can be efficiently driven by HSCs in the myeloablative setting and have substantial implications

252 In the myeloablative setting, 3-month acute grade 2-4 (16% vs 3

253 In the myeloablative setting, day 30 neutrophil recovery was lo

254 e sequentially with chemotherapy, and in the myeloablative setting.

255 s with AML in first complete remission after myeloablative sibling alloHCT (85% to 94%; P < .001) and

256 10-year adult cancer survivors who underwent myeloablative stem cell transplant (SCT).

257 ttern of hematopoietic recovery secondary to myeloablative stress.

258 ll HSC and their ability to regenerate after myeloablative stress.

259 patient who achieved durable remission after myeloablative syngeneic HSCT.

260 RIC and myeloablative TBI-based regimens result in durable engra

261 al radiation, and two consecutive courses of myeloablative therapy (including total-body irradiation)

262 CONCLUSION Myeloablative therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell

263 freedom from recurrence may be achieved with myeloablative therapy and that a plateau on the curve se

264 Patients were stratified according to prior myeloablative therapy and whether they had measurable so

265 Basal and stress granulopoiesis after myeloablative therapy are normal in these mice.

266 high-risk hematologic malignancies received myeloablative therapy followed by transplantation with 2

267 on-purged PBSC are acceptable for support of myeloablative therapy of high-risk neuroblastoma.

268 tients with follicular lymphoma who received myeloablative therapy supported by autologous bone marro

269 For myeloablative therapy, artery wall ADs were in general l

270 al blood stem cells (PBSC) are infused after myeloablative therapy, but the effect of purging is unkn

271 nzylguanidine avid metastases present before myeloablative therapy, followed by oral isotretinoin.

272 ostinduction (n = 330), before consolidation myeloablative therapy.

273 ive fungal infections in patients undergoing myeloablative therapy.

274 d a potential concern and limiting factor in myeloablative therapy.

275 identical or KIR-ligand matched donors after myeloablative therapy.

276 al models of bone marrow transplantation non-myeloablative TLI conditioning protects against GvHD by

277 and whole bone marrow (BM) cells or through myeloablative total body irradiation conditioning and re

278 antation in rhesus macaques conditioned with myeloablative total body irradiation in the absence or p

279 GVHD, abrogates the antileukemic benefits of myeloablative total body irradiation-based conditioning

280 ergoing unrelated donor transplantation with myeloablative total body irradiation-based regimens.

281 in 1,960 adults after HLA-identical sibling myeloablative transplant for acute myeloid leukemia (AML

282 In a myeloablative transplant model where GVHD lethality is d

283 s were able to drive the lung phenotype in a myeloablative transplant model.

284 development of reduced-intensity or even non-myeloablative transplant regimens in some patient groups

285 ious total body irradiation (TBI)-containing myeloablative transplantation (2-year OS, 23% vs 63% vs

286 regimen in pediatric patients ineligible for myeloablative transplantation, we completed a trial at 2

287 patients in remission who are ineligible for myeloablative transplantation.

288 However, administration of such myeloablative transplants is fraught with risks, some of

289 geneic transplants are better tolerated than myeloablative transplants.

290 osimetry software, 3D-RD, and applied to the myeloablative treatment of NHL.

291 a methodology and applied it to hypothetical myeloablative treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) pa

292 Myeloablative treatment preceding hematopoietic stem cel

293 ll cycle due to culture, transplantation, or myeloablative treatment, at which point they activate a

294 Myeloablative treatments based on the latter approach al

295 ut mice, parathyroid hormone stimulation and myeloablative treatments failed to induce normal HSPC pr

296 s associated with leukemia relapse following myeloablative UCB transplantation.

297 mismatched (MM) loci on the outcome of 2687 myeloablative unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transpl

298 d pediatric patients who had first undergone myeloablative-unrelated bone marrow or peripheral blood

299 patients, LONIPCs occurred in 21% receiving myeloablative vs. 12% with nonmyeloablative conditioning

300 ic administered activities-both standard and myeloablative-were input into a geometry and tracking mo