ライフサイエンスコーパス: myeloablative

1 patients with acute leukaemia who received a myeloablative 10/10 HLA-matched haematopoietic stem-cell

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

3 PAMI syndrome underwent allogeneic HSCT with myeloablative (4) or reduced-intensity (1) conditioning

4 y, and renders HSC more vulnerable to serial myeloablative 5-fluorouracil treatment.

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

6 ed for standard therapeutic and hypothetical myeloablative administered activities.

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

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

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

10 Conclusion Myeloablative allogeneic HCT recipients showed significa

11 Patients undergoing myeloablative allogeneic HCT were randomized before HCT

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

13 Myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transpl

14 Myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transpl

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

16 Non-myeloablative allogeneic HSCT after autologous HSCT is n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ioning regimen intensity (myeloablative, non-myeloablative, and reduced-intensity regimens), age (<=1

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 Most patients (65%) received myeloablative busulfan-based conditioning.

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 ow-dose TBI, the incidence was comparable to myeloablative chemotherapy alone, although still twofold

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

52 Finally, we show that myeloablative chemotherapy can selectively disrupt aged

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

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

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

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

57 Myeloablative chemotherapy with stem cell transplantatio

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

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

60 fatal liver injury that mainly occurs after myeloablative chemotherapy.

61 ut did not differ between those who received myeloablative compared with non-myeloablative regimens (

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

63 , 6 treatment categories were evaluated: (1) myeloablative conditioning (MA) with total body irradiat

64 ignancy in morphologic complete remission to myeloablative conditioning (MAC) or reduced-intensity co

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

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

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

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

69 EFS was best with matched sibling donors, myeloablative conditioning (MAC), and bone marrow-derive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

79 Myeloablative conditioning and chronic graft-versus-host

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

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

82 ylaxis regimen for patients treated with non-myeloablative conditioning and HLA-matched unrelated HSC

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

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

85 sence of nicotinamide and transplanted after myeloablative conditioning as a stand-alone hematopoieti

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

87 Myeloablative conditioning before bone marrow transplant

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

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

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

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

92 cell-based lentiviral gene therapy following myeloablative conditioning in first-in-human studies (tr

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

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

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

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

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

98 Standardized myeloablative conditioning produced a low incidence of t

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

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

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

102 87 IB-UCBT with 149 dUCBT recipients, after myeloablative conditioning regimen adjusting for the dif

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

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

105 py strategy, particularly when it involves a myeloablative conditioning regimen for hematopoietic ste

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

107 8 children with Hurler syndrome (HS) after a myeloablative conditioning regimen from 1995 to 2007.

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

109 ospective clinical trials of the most common myeloablative conditioning regimen, BEAM, are limited.

110 an unrelated 10/10 HLA-matched donor, with a myeloablative conditioning regimen, between Jan 1, 2000,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

121 conditioning regimens and those who received myeloablative conditioning regimens.

122 Myeloablative conditioning represented 66% of transplant

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

124 Myeloablative conditioning results in thymic epithelial

125 ated HSCT pre-treatment could serve as a non-myeloablative conditioning strategy for the treatment of

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

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

128 Non-myeloablative conditioning typically results in donor-de

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

130 3 x 10(9) cells per L [IQR 29.75-180.00] for myeloablative conditioning vs 160 x 10(9) cells per L [9

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

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

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

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

135 or unrelated donor were randomly assigned to myeloablative conditioning with fractionated 12 Gy TBI a

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

137 After myeloablative conditioning, higher dominant unit total n

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

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

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

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

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

143 ty and mortality associated with traditional myeloablative conditioning.

144 l malignancies who cannot tolerate intensive myeloablative conditioning.

145 nditioned transplants and which require more myeloablative conditioning.

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

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

148 4-6/6 HLA matched dUCB (n = 128) graft after myeloablative conditioning.

149 patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT after myeloablative conditioning.

150 s favoring reduced intensity conditioning or myeloablative conditioning.

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

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

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

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

155 'Non-myeloablative' conditioning regimens to achieve lymphocy

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

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

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

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

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

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

162 Myeloablative doses of busulfan should not be used with

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

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 We previously found that non-myeloablative haploidentical related bone marrow transpl

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

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

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

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

172 from pre-HCT and 30, 100, and 365 days after myeloablative HCT from 37 donor-recipient pairs.

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

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

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

176 Myeloablative HCT recipients had significantly lower ( P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

185 1, 2015, in the three clinical trials of non-myeloablative HPC transplantation at the National Instit

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

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

188 e graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) after non-myeloablative human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched, unr

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

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

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

192 We found that myeloablative irradiation followed by bone marrow transp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

208 donor type, conditioning regimen intensity (myeloablative, non-myeloablative, and reduced-intensity

209 ant for platelet reconstitution after either myeloablative or busulfan-containing reduced intensity c

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

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

212 HLA-B, HLA-C, or DRB1 loci) graft following myeloablative or non-myeloablative-reduced intensity con

213 eexisting inhibitory antibodies under either myeloablative or nonmyeloablative regimens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

220 All children were given a fully myeloablative preparative regimen.

221 considered at an increased risk for standard myeloablative preparative regimens based on age (>=50 ye

222 Thus, myeloablative pretransplant conditioning can be safely c

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

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

225 Myeloablative radioimmunotherapy using (131)I-tositumoma

226 1 loci) graft following myeloablative or non-myeloablative-reduced intensity conditioning.

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 who received myeloablative compared with non-myeloablative regimens (1.57, 0.95-2.61; p=0.079).

236 sible strategies to improve outcomes, reduce myeloablative regimens and future challenges to reduce t

237 iving more intensive conditioning, including myeloablative regimens and higher dose melphalan-based r

238 Use of myeloablative regimens and HSCT at 2 years or less from

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

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

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

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

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

244 p=0.013) than in those conditioned with non-myeloablative regimens, but did not differ between those

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

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

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

248 pective, randomized trials comparing RIC and myeloablative regimens.

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

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

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

252 The myeloablative Scleroderma Cyclophosphamide versus Transp

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

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

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

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

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

258 10-year adult cancer survivors who underwent myeloablative stem cell transplant (SCT).

259 mechanisms regulating stromal recovery after myeloablative stress are of high clinical interest to op

260 5 (+) LT-HSCs expand with age and respond to myeloablative stress in young mice while NEO1(-) Hoxb5 (

261 ttern of hematopoietic recovery secondary to myeloablative stress.

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

263 patient who achieved durable remission after myeloablative syngeneic HSCT.

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

265 CONCLUSION Myeloablative therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

286 patients in remission who are ineligible for myeloablative transplantation.

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

288 geneic transplants are better tolerated than myeloablative transplants.

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

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

291 Myeloablative treatment preceding hematopoietic stem cel

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

293 Myeloablative treatments based on the latter approach al

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

295 s associated with leukemia relapse following myeloablative UCB transplantation.

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

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

298 tality was similar for patients who received myeloablative versus reduced-intensity conditioning, as

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