Bone Marrow Transplantation

Bekkum, D. W. van; Löwenberg, Bob; Vriesendorp, Huibert M.

doi:10.1007/978-94-011-6182-4_6

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 127 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, a double immunological barrier adds complexity, including host-versus-graft (graft rejection) and graftversus-host reactions. 5,6 Both barriers increase with the degree of disparities in major and minor histocompatibility antigens. Graft rejection is always associated with detrimental effects for the patient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Graft rejection is always associated with detrimental effects for the patient. [5][6][7][8][9] In contrast, the graft-versus-host reactions present a Janus face. The detrimental part, graft-versus-host disease, remains the most important direct or indirect cause for nonrelapse mortality after allogeneic HSCT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The detrimental part, graft-versus-host disease, remains the most important direct or indirect cause for nonrelapse mortality after allogeneic HSCT. 1,[5][6][7] The 'other face', the graft-versus-malignancy effect, is desired and may result in cure of the recipient. 10 HSCT presents also as role model of precision medicine: one individual donor is selected for one individual recipient based on genetic findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Alloreactivity: the Janus-face of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in major and minor histocompatibility antigens between donor and recipient trigger powerful graft-versus-host reactions after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The clinical effects of alloreactivity present a Janus-face: detrimental graft-versus-host disease increases non-relapse mortality, beneficial graft-versus-malignancy may cure the recipient. The ultimate consequences on long-term outcome remain a matter of debate. We hypothesized that increasing donor-recipient antigen matching would decrease the negative effects, while preserving antitumor alloreactivity. We analyzed retrospectively a predefined cohort of 32 838 such patients and compared it to 59 692 patients with autologous HSCT as reference group. We found a significant and systematic decrease in non-relapse mortality with decreasing phenotypic and genotypic antigen disparity, paralleled by a stepwise increase in overall and relapse-free survival (Spearman correlation coefficients of cumulative excess event rates at 5 years 0.964; P o 0.00; respectively 0.976; P o0.00). We observed this systematic stepwise effect in all main disease and disease-stage categories. The results suggest that detrimental effects of alloreactivity are additive with each step of mismatching; the beneficial effects remain preserved. Hence, if there is a choice, the best match should be donor of choice. The data support an intensified search for predictive genomic and environmental factors of 'no-graft-versus-host disease'.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alloreactivity: the Janus-face of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This impressive development is reflected in an equally impressive number of articles and in a series of monographs, symposia proceedings and review articles. Leaving aside the less recent literature, AlloBMT has been the object of 6 monographs and monographic journal issues [18][19][20][21][22][23][24], 4 UCLA [25][26][27] and 15 EBMT meeting proceedings, of which only the last 4 will be indicated [28], other symposia [29] and a number of review articles [30][31][32][33][34].…”

Section: Increasing Use Of Bmtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone Marrow Transplantation

Marmont¹

1990

New Approaches to the Treatment of Leukemia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In spite of the consequent donor pool limitations (essentially only perfectly matched siblings being permissible), bone marrow transplantation-first accomplished clinically in 1968 by Robert Good of the University of Minnesota [32] and soon thereafter by Thomas (Nobel Laureate 1990) [33] and van Bekkum [34]-matured into accepted clinical therapy for hematologic diseases and an assortment of other indications.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

France and the Early History of Organ Transplantation

Starzl¹

1993

pbm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The different starting points and uneven emphasis of historical accounts of transplantation [1] have tended to obscure the contributions to this field of some of the grand figures of French medicine and science. Clinical transplantation activity began in France within the first few years of the twentieth century when Jaboulay in Lyon [2] and others in France and Germany performed subhuman-primate-to-human kidney heterotransplantation [3][4][5]. In 1936, The Russian Yu Yu Voronoy of Kiev made the first known attempt at renal allotransplantation [6]. Visitors flocked to France in the early 1950s to learn firsthand from this experience, including John Merrill of Boston, as Hume described in the classical account of his own clinical trials at the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital [12]. The extensive discussion of the French experience by Hume was typical of this man whose awareness and acknowledgment of other people's work was noteworthy throughout his illustrious career. As important as these and later contributions of Kuss [13] and Hamburger [14] were, the scientific basis for transplantation in France went far deeper. The roots of histocompatibility research were nourished in France by Jean Dausset (Nobel Laureate 1980) [15]. In addition, George Mathe, the father of cell transplantation, was part of the Paris clique of the 1950s and early 1960s.The skills necessary to transplant the kidney (the only candidate organ until the 1960s) were applications of what were becoming conventional surgical practices after World War II. The vascular surgical technology came from the Frenchman Alexis Carrel [16] and had a pervasive effect on essentially all surgical specialties. Although Carrel understood that transplanted organs were not permanently accepted, the biologic specificity of the field of transplantation was defined by Medawar when he showed that rejection is an immunologic event [17,18]. In retrospect, every further development was a logical and inevitable step from this beginning. If rejection was in fact an immune reaction, what could be more logical than to protect the organ transplant by weakening the immune system? Medawar's conclusion about the nature of As Billingham, Brent, and Medawar (later referred to as the "holy trinity") meticulously annotated, the impetus and rationale for these experiments came originally from the observation by Owen [24] that freemartin cattle (the calf equivalents of human fraternal twins) were permanent hematopoietic chimeras if placental fusion and fetal cross-circulation had existed in utero. Burnet and Fenner [25] predicted that such chimerism and the ability to exchange other tissues could be induced by the kind of experiment eventually performed with Medawar by Billingham and Brent whose definition of tolerance was that it "is due to a primary central failure of the mechanism of the immunological reaction, and not to some intercession, at a peripheral level" [23].The surgical interest generated by the demonstration that tolerance could be acquired was quickly dampened when it w...

show abstract

Bone Marrow Transplantation

Cited by 7 publications

References 127 publications

Alloreactivity: the Janus-face of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Alloreactivity: the Janus-face of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Bone Marrow Transplantation

France and the Early History of Organ Transplantation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About