Introduction: Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a well-established therapeutic option used in the treatment of malignant and non-malignant disorders. According to numerous studies, there is a correlation between donor sex or sex mismatching between donor and recipient and increased risk of graft-versus-host diseases. Aim of the study: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of donor-recipient sex mismatching on the incidence of transplant-related complications in children undergoing allogeneic HSCT. Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective study comparing the prevalence of transplant-related adverse events between female donor-female recipient, female donor-male recipient, male donor-male recipient, and male donor-female recipient groups. The study population included 198 patients from the department's database, who underwent allogeneic HSCT between 2001 and 2018 in the Department of Paediatric Haematology, Oncology, and Transplantology in Lublin. Results: No statistically significant differences in prevalence of transplant-related complications between the four groups were found in this study: acute graft-versus-host disease (p = 0.53), chronic graft-versus-host disease (p = 0.69), hepatic veno-occlusive disease (p = 0.41), renal failure (p = 0.81), bleeding (p = 0.51), cytomegaly virus infection (p = 0.41), Epstein-Barr infection (p = 0.29), and fungal infection (p = 0.31). Conclusions: The study showed no correlation between sex mismatching and HSCT complication frequency in children. The results of this study suggest that the donor's gender might not be a crucial factor in screening for potential donors in the paediatric population. Rising evidence of the lack of a direct impact of a donor's gender on overall HSCT transplant outcomes and adverse events in the paediatric population might in future change the criteria we follow when looking for potential donors. In conclusion, there is a need for prospective observational studies, which could investigate the mechanisms of adverse events and multicentre retrospective studies, which would allow larger homogeneous populations to be gathered to further research the impact of donor's demographics on allogeneic HSCT outcomes and complications.
Introduction and objective. Ovarian cancer (OC) is the third most commonly diagnosed gynecological cancer among women worldwide and the second most common in Poland. Early-stage ovarian cancer is still very difficult to diagnose and concerns only about 20-30% of all ovarian cancers. Most cases (approximately 70%) of ovarian cancer are diagnosed at more advanced stages (III and IV). The aim of the review is to bring closer new potential biological markers -Nidogen-1 and Nidogen-2 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Brief description of the state of knowledge. To date, the best serum marker for ovarian cancer is Ca-125, but its use as a screening marker is limited due to high false positive rates. Ca-125 could be elevated in other benign and malignant conditions. Serum concentrations of Nidogen-1 and Nidogen-2 are higher in the advanced stagegroup (Stage III and IV), in comparison to the early stage group (Stage I and II) in serous ovarian cancer, and can reflect the tumour burden. Analysis showed that Nidogens discriminate against patients with serous ovarian carcinomas from healthy controls. The concentrations of both of them correlate with concentration Ca-125, especially Nidogen-2. The above biomarkers were compared with the results of the preoperative detection of ovarian cancer that are often used in clinical practice -IOTA Simple Rules, Risk of Malignancy Index and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm. Conclusions. Nidogen-1 and Nidogen-2 are new promising biomarkers for ovarian cancer, especially for the serous type, although there is still a need for prospective studies proving their good diagnostic value.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.