ライフサイエンスコーパス: graft-versus-leukemia effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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