ライフサイエンスコーパス: myeloablative conditioning

1 [NC]/kg; range, 1.1-6.3 x 10(7) NC/kg) after myeloablative conditioning.

2 zed peripheral blood CD34(+) cells following myeloablative conditioning.

3 e been developed for patients ineligible for myeloablative conditioning.

4 oietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) after myeloablative conditioning.

5 transplantation (SCT) performed by means of myeloablative conditioning.

6 imeras produced across HLA barriers with non-myeloablative conditioning.

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

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

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

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

11 ty and mortality associated with traditional myeloablative conditioning.

12 l malignancies who cannot tolerate intensive myeloablative conditioning.

13 nditioned transplants and which require more myeloablative conditioning.

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

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

16 4-6/6 HLA matched dUCB (n = 128) graft after myeloablative conditioning.

17 patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT after myeloablative conditioning.

18 s favoring reduced intensity conditioning or myeloablative conditioning.

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

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

21 etic cell transplantation following standard myeloablative conditioning.

22 s hematopoiesis in cancer patients following myeloablative conditioning.

23 74 concurrent and consecutive patients given myeloablative conditioning (ablative patients) before un

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

25 Group 3 received myeloablative conditioning, an autologous BM transplant

26 nt of acute lethal GVHD in mice that undergo myeloablative conditioning and allogeneic BMT.

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

28 Myeloablative conditioning and chronic graft-versus-host

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

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

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

32 High TRM suggest that myeloablative conditioning and HLA-mismatched donors sho

33 Treatment of leukemia by myeloablative conditioning and transplantation of major

34 nonobese diabetic (NOD)/scid mice underwent myeloablative conditioning and transplantation with huma

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

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

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

38 Myeloablative conditioning before bone marrow transplant

39 patients who underwent transplantation with myeloablative conditioning between 1994 and 1998.

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

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

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

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

44 urvived, compared with 10 (53%) of 19 in the myeloablative conditioning group (P = .014).

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

46 significant donor engraftment without fully myeloablative conditioning has revolutionized allogeneic

47 After myeloablative conditioning, higher dominant unit total n

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

49 nsplantation-related mortality compared with myeloablative conditioning in high-risk patients undergo

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

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

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

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

54 , 6 treatment categories were evaluated: (1) myeloablative conditioning (MA) with total body irradiat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

66 logeneic bone-marrow transplantation without myeloablative conditioning might have potent immunothera

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

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

69 t potential has been impeded by the need for myeloablative conditioning of the host and development o

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

71 lfan (0.8 mg/kg/d x 4); 81 patients received myeloablative conditioning, primarily cyclophosphamide a

72 Standard myeloablative conditioning prior to allogeneic hematopoi

73 Standardized myeloablative conditioning produced a low incidence of t

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

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

76 A myeloablative conditioning regimen (group 3) prevented t

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

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

79 87 IB-UCBT with 149 dUCBT recipients, after myeloablative conditioning regimen adjusting for the dif

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

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

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

83 8 children with Hurler syndrome (HS) after a myeloablative conditioning regimen from 1995 to 2007.

84 The myeloablative conditioning regimen included busulfan, cy

85 cohorts treated before and after changes in myeloablative conditioning regimen intensity (high vs. s

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

87 es of canine bone marrow CD34+ cells after a myeloablative conditioning regimen.

88 matched bone-marrow transplantation by a non-myeloablative conditioning regimen.

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

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

91 cies received a total body irradiation-based myeloablative conditioning regimen.

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

93 arabine is an efficacious, reduced-toxicity, myeloablative-conditioning regimen for patients with AML

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

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

96 xicity, much of which is consequent upon the myeloablative conditioning regimens currently used.

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

98 Current myeloablative conditioning regimens for hematopoietic st

99 rts yielded MP-TCD (P<0.001), high-intensity myeloablative conditioning regimens used in cohort 1 (P

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

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

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

103 genetics and HCT from unrelated donors using myeloablative conditioning regimens.

104 stem cells in human adults not subjected to myeloablative conditioning regimens.

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

106 conditioning regimens and those who received myeloablative conditioning regimens.

107 'Non-myeloablative' conditioning regimens to achieve lymphocy

108 Myeloablative conditioning represented 66% of transplant

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

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

111 Myeloablative conditioning results in thymic epithelial

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

113 r bone-marrow transplantation after standard myeloablative conditioning therapy for haematological ma

114 treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia after myeloablative conditioning therapy.

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

116 achieve this permissive state without toxic, myeloablative conditioning, thus bringing this approach

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

118 Non-myeloablative conditioning typically results in donor-de

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

120 ce can be established in the absence of host myeloablative conditioning using a peripheral transplant

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

122 3 x 10(9) cells per L [IQR 29.75-180.00] for myeloablative conditioning vs 160 x 10(9) cells per L [9

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

124 oretroviral vectors in animals that received myeloablative conditioning, we observed the complete dis

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

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

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

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

129 nd antithymocyte globulin (ATG; 90 mg/kg) or myeloablative conditioning with total body irradiation (

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