ライフサイエンスコーパス: graft-versus-leukemia

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

2 alloreactive effect might also contribute to 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 amage and lethality without compromising the graft-versus-leukemia activity, which is crucial to prev

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 nce, severity and survival without hampering graft versus leukemia effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 ng understanding of the immunobiology of the graft-versus-leukemia effect and the immune escape mecha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 tem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and the graft-versus-leukemia effect mediated by donor T cells,

39 Given the graft-versus-leukemia effect observed with allogeneic he

40 cell subsets that may be beneficial for the graft-versus-leukemia effect observed.

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

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

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

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

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

46 D because there is no theoretical beneficial graft-versus-leukemia effect that can accompany graft-ve

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

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

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

50 Our goal was to maximize the graft-versus-leukemia effect while minimizing the risk o

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

61 IL-6 classical signaling did not impair the graft-versus-leukemia effect.

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

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

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

65 ells in vivo while preserving the beneficial graft-versus-leukemia effect.

66 rvival, and lower relapse, suggesting higher graft-versus-leukemia effect.

67 with control T(regs) without abolishing the graft-versus-leukemia effect.

68 essed GVHD development while maintaining the graft-versus-leukemia effect.

69 and prolonged survival, with preservation of graft-versus-leukemia effect.

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

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

72 o therapies aiming to unleash or enhance the graft-versus-leukemia effect.

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

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

75 tion can attenuate GVHD while preserving the graft-versus-leukemia effect.

76 cute myeloid leukemia (AML) and relies on a "graft-versus-leukemia" effect (GVL) where donor T lympho

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

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

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

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

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

82 teins expressed by many normal host tissues, graft-versus-leukemia effects are often accompanied by m

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

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

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

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

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

88 relapse-free survival, it commonly reflects graft-versus-leukemia effects mediated by donor T cells

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

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

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

92 minant cytotoxic subset after BMT, mediating graft-versus-leukemia effects while limiting inflammatio

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

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

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

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

97 es reduced aGVHD severity but did not reduce graft-versus-leukemia effects.

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

99 of the malignant disease, thus highlighting graft-versus-leukemia effects.

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

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

102 ed neurocognitive activity, without blocking graft-versus-leukemia effects.

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

104 with JAK1/2 inhibition, without compromising graft-versus-leukemia-effects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

114 sus-host disease (GVHD) while preserving the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) activity of donor T cells.

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

116 Caspase-11 deficiency does not decrease the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) activity, which is essential

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

124 Despite the crucial role of mHAgs in graft-versus-leukemia (GvL) and graft-versus-host diseas

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

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

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

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

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

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

131 esidual leukemia and prevent relapse via the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect and are critical for

132 mia stem cells might lead to an insufficient graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect and relapse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

139 on primary human AML cells and enhanced the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect in human xenograft mo

140 long-term survival without compromising the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect in lymphocytic and my

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

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

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

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

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

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

147 current understanding of the biology of the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect still lags behind tha

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

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

150 poietic cell transplantation, leveraging the graft-versus-leukemia (GvL) effect to restore immune con

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

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

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

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

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

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

157 ransplants, alloreactive T cells mediate the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

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

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

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

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

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

163 lected donor lymphocytes (DLIs) enhances the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

164 nate residual malignant cells, the so-called graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

165 cal benefit of alloSCT greatly relies on the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

174 teroid-refractory GVHD, without compromising graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects in multiple mouse mo

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

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

177 ure patients with high-risk leukemia through graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects, the process by whic

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

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

180 lted in a reduction in GVHD while preserving graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects.

181 -containing molecule 3 (TIM-3) for improving graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects.

182 7 cells are noncytolytic and fail to mediate graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

189 Graft-versus-leukemia (GvL) reactions are responsible fo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

198 ith ipilimumab can reinvigorate an effective graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) response, we integrated tran

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

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

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

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

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

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

205 t eliminating A20-luciferase B-cell lymphoma graft-versus-leukemia (GVL).

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

207 their incomplete efficacy and impairment of graft-versus-leukemia (GVL).

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

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

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

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

212 mphocytes (DLI) has the potential to restore graft-versus-leukemia immunologic surveillance; however,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

222 is necessary to predict its contribution to graft-versus-leukemia reactions and to eventually use KI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

231 he induction of GVHD but dispensable for the graft-versus-leukemia response.

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

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

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

235 ation, IRX4204-treated recipients maintained graft-versus-leukemia responses against both leukemia an

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

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

238 tinib balanced graft-versus-host disease and graft-versus-leukemia responses in delayed donor lymphoc

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

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

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

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

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

244 tive T cells and successful perseveration of graft-versus-leukemia responses.

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

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