A 15-Year Analysis of Early and Late Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant in Relapsed, Aggressive, Transformed, and Nontransformed Follicular Lymphoma

AbstractAutologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been shown to be an effective treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL). We explored our experience in ASCT for FL among all patients treated over a 15-year period from diagnosis through their entire treatment history including relapse post ASCT. All patients who underwent an unpurged ASCT for relapsed, advanced FL between June 1990 and December 2000 were analyzed. After salvage therapy they received melphalan/etoposide/total body irradiation, BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan (BEAM), or cyclophosphamide BCNU etoposide (CBV) as conditioning for the ASCT. One hundred thirty-eight patients with a median age of 48 years and a median follow-up of 7.6 years were analyzed. The majority were of the subtype grade 1, nontransformed (FL-NT), having had 1 prior chemotherapy. The progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the FL-NT at 10 years were 46% and 57%, respectively, and at 5 years for the transformed (FL-T) were 25% and 56%, respectively, of which only the PFS was significantly different (P = .007). The median OS from diagnosis was 16 years for the FL-NT. ASCT positively altered the trend of shorter remissions with subsequent chemotherapies, and there was no difference in OS between those who had 1, 2, or >2 chemotherapies prior to ASCT. Salvage therapy for relapse post ASCT was effective (OS >1 year) in a third of patients. Unpurged ASCT is an effective tool in the treatment of relapsed, aggressive FL-NT and FL-T, is superior to retreatment with standard chemotherapy, is effective at various stages of treatment, is likely to have a beneficial influence on the natural history of this disease, and the disease is amenable to salvage therapy post-ASCT relapse

Labor attitudes and problems,

Bibliography at end of each chapter.Mode of access: Internet

Is belief larger than fact: expectations, optimism and reality for translational stem cell research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Stem cell (SC) therapies hold remarkable promise for many diseases, but there is a significant gulf between public expectations and the reality of progress toward clinical application. Public expectations are fueled by stakeholder arguments for research and public funding, coupled with intense media coverage in an ethically charged arena. We examine media representations in light of the expanding global landscape of SC clinical trials, asking what patients may realistically expect by way of timelines for the therapeutic and curative potential of regenerative medicine?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We built 2 international datasets: (1) 3,404 clinical trials (CT) containing 'stem cell*' from ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Search Portal; and (2) 13,249 newspaper articles on SC therapies using Factiva.com. We compared word frequencies between the CT descriptions and full-text newspaper articles for the number containing terms for SC type and diseases/conditions. We also developed inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify novel SC CTs, mainly regenerative medicine applications.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Newspaper articles focused on human embryonic SCs and neurological conditions with significant coverage as well of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. In contrast, CTs used primarily hematopoietic SCs, with an increase in CTs using mesenchymal SCs since 2007. The latter dominated our novel classification for CTs, most of which are in phases I and II. From the perspective of the public, expecting therapies for neurological conditions, there is limited activity in what may be considered novel applications of SC therapies.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Given the research, regulatory, and commercialization hurdles to the clinical translation of SC research, it seems likely that patients and political supporters will become disappointed and disillusioned. In this environment, proponents need to make a concerted effort to temper claims. Even though the field is highly promising, it lacks significant private investment and is largely reliant on public support, requiring a more honest acknowledgement of the expected therapeutic benefits and the timelines to achieving them.</p