Sugerencias para una metodología etnográfica en el campo de la peninsula ibérica

Intenta establecer un esquema básico sobre "Iberia" que puede ser útil para la cartografía etnográfica y conducir a nuevas averiguaciones sobre los iberos y los celtas. Se analiza el espacio geográfico que designaba "Iberia" desde el siglo VI a.C

Antioxidants: Positive or Negative Actors?

The term "antioxidant" is one of the most confusing definitions in biological/medical sciences. In chemistry, "antioxidant" is simply conceived "a compound that removes reactive species, mainly those oxygen-derived", while in a cell context, the conceptual definition of an antioxidant is poorly understood. Indeed, non-clinically recommended antioxidants are often consumed in large amounts by the global population, based on the belief that cancer, inflammation and degenerative diseases are triggered by high oxygen levels (or reactive oxygen species) and that through blocking reactive species production, organic unbalances/disorders can be prevented and/or even treated. The popularity of these chemicals arises in part from the widespread public mistrust of allopathic medicine. In fact, reactive oxygen species play a dual role in dealing with different disorders, since they may contribute to disease onset and/or progression but may also play a key role in disease prevention. Further, the ability of the most commonly used supplements, such as vitamins C, E, selenium, and herbal supplements to decrease pathologic reactive oxygen species is not clearly established. Hence, the present review aims to provide a nuanced understanding of where current knowledge is and where it should go.Antoni Sureda acknowledges the support of Institute of Health Carlos III (Project CIBEROBNCB12/03/30038). Natália Martins thank to Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT–Portugal) for the Strategic project ref. UID/BIM/04293/2013 and “NORTE2020-Programa Operacional Regional do Norte” (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000012)

Visions for a JACIE quality management system 4.0

Quality management has been part of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) from the very beginning. It evolved step-wise from open data exchange up to the introduction of the FACT/JACIE-based quality management system (QMS) 2 decades ago. This formal step has eased cooperation, and improved outcome for patients. Today’s expansion of cellular and targeted therapies and new drugs, and the regulatory requirements for advanced therapeutic medicinal products have touched the limits of the current system. Based on the Medicine 4.0 concept, the next step should integrate novel views of QMS. The old definition “Best Quality Transplant” will be replaced by “Optimal Treatment,” and encompass the entire health care journey. “Best outcome” will refer to overall survival, quality of life and costs, with or without HSCT, and will be compatible with all requirements by competent authorities. Decisions will be based on high-level evidence, supported by real-time digitized data collection, data analysis, incorporated into artificial-intelligence systems. To reach this goal, EBMT/JACIE will be challenged to start the process by further fostering harmonization within and between organizations at institutional, national, and European levels. Acceleration in information technology and modifications to working practices during the pandemic should facilitate this development to the next stage

Exploratory Biomarker Analysis In The Ph 3 Echelon‐1 Study: Worse Outcome With Abvd In Patients With Elevated Baseline Levels Of Scd30 And Tarc

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149507/1/hon99_2630.pd

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Europe 2014: More than 40 000 transplants annually

A record number of 40 829 hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in 36 469 patients (15 765 allogeneic (43%), 20 704 autologous (57%)) were reported by 656 centers in 47 countries to the 2014 survey. Trends include: continued growth in transplant activity, more so in Eastern European countries than in the west; a continued increase in the use of haploidentical family donors (by 25%) and slower growth for unrelated donor HSCT. The use of cord blood as a stem cell source has decreased again in 2014. Main indications for HSCT were leukemias: 11 853 (33%; 96% allogeneic); lymphoid neoplasias; 20 802 (57%; 11% allogeneic); solid tumors; 1458 (4%; 3% allogeneic) and non-malignant disorders; 2203 (6%; 88% allogeneic). Changes in transplant activity include more allogeneic HSCT for AML in CR1, myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) and aplastic anemia and decreasing use in CLL; and more autologous HSCT for plasma cell disorders and in particular for amyloidosis. In addition, data on numbers of teams doing alternative donor transplants, allogeneic after autologous HSCT, autologous cord blood transplants are presented

Alloreactivity: the Janus-face of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

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<0.00; respectively 0.976; P<0.00). 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’.Leukemia advance online publication, 7 April 2017; doi:10.1038/leu.2017.79

The Aethera Trial: An Ongoing Phase 3 Study of Brentuximab Vedotin in the Treatment of Patients at High Risk of Residual Hodgkin Lymphoma Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplant

n/

Updated Efficacy and Safety Data from the AETHERA Trial of Consolidation with Brentuximab Vedotin after Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) in Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients at High Risk of Relapse

Abstract Introduction The AETHERA trial is a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01100502), which evaluated whether post-ASCT consolidation treatment with brentuximab vedotin (BV) could prevent disease progression in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients at high risk for relapse. The study met its primary endpoint: significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review with BV versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57, P=0.001) (Moskowitz, 2015). The 2 most common adverse events (AEs) in the BV- treatment group were peripheral sensory neuropathy (56%) and neutropenia (35%). We are presenting updated efficacy and safety data after approximately 1 additional year of follow-up after the primary analysis. Methods Patients were randomized to receive BV 1.8 mg/kg q3wk or placebo for 16 cycles (approximately 12 months), 30-45 days after transplantation. Randomization was stratified by response to frontline therapy and by best clinical response to pre-ASCT salvage therapy. Patients whose disease had progressed after salvage treatment were not eligible. Patients received CT scans quarterly for the first year and then at 18 and 24 months during long-term follow-up (LTFU). Clinical lymphoma assessments were performed at each cycle of treatment, quarterly during the first year of LTFU, and every 6 months thereafter. AEs were collected for 30 days after the end of treatment, except for peripheral neuropathies and secondary malignancies, which were followed throughout LTFU. Clinical responses to subsequent BV treatment received after progression were also recorded. Results A total of 329 patients were randomized to the BV- (n=165) or placebo- (n=164) treatment arms. Median PFS per investigator assessment was not reached (95% CI not estimable [NE]-NE) in the BV arm and was 15.8 months (95% CI 8.5-44.0) in the placebo arm (HR=0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.71). A sustained plateau with substantial separation is evident between both treatment groups, with improved PFS at 3-years post-randomization with BV consolidation versus placebo (Figure). The 3-year PFS rate was 61% (95% CI 52-68) for the BV arm and 43% (95% CI 36-51) for the placebo arm. Six PFS events (2 progressions and 4 deaths) were recorded after the 24-month evaluation period in the BV arm and 3 in the placebo arm (2 progressions and 1 death). The HR for PFS per independent review was 0.58 (95% CI 0.41-0.82). No new secondary malignancies have been observed since the primary analysis. The number of cases were comparable between the 2 treatment arms (n=4 BV, n=2 placebo). Malignancies on the BV arm included bladder cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). In the placebo arm, secondary malignancies included mantle cell lymphoma and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). Among the 112 patients on the BV arm who experienced treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy based on a Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Query (SMQ) analysis, 99 patients (88%) experienced some improvement (23%) or complete resolution (65%) of neuropathy symptoms at the time of analysis. Discontinuation of treatment due to an AE occurred in 54 patients (33%) on the BV arm, most commonly due to peripheral sensory and motor neuropathies (14% and 7%, respectively). Patients who discontinued treatment as a result of an AE received a median of 9.5 cycles (range, 1 to 15) on the BV arm. The 2-year PFS rate in these patients was 69% (95% CI 54-79) versus 82% (95% CI 71-89) for patients who completed all 16 treatment cycles. Conclusions Consolidation treatment with BV in HL patients at high risk of relapse after ASCT showed an improvement in PFS versus placebo, approximately 3 years since the last patient was randomized. Kaplan-Meier analysis of PFS per investigator assessment showed a continued benefit of BV consolidation. No additional secondary malignancies have been observed in either treatment arm and most patients experienced resolution of peripheral neuropathy symptoms. We are currently analyzing clinical responses to BV treatment after disease progression. Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Disclosures Sweetenham: Seattle Genetics Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated in the US for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. This study investigates the use of brentuximab vedotin for consolidation therapy soon after ASCT. . Walewski:Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Janssen-Cilag; Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda; Teva: Consultancy; Bayer (Inst); Bayer/Onyx (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celltrion (Inst); Gilead Sciences (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); Mundipharma (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche/Genentech (Inst); Seattle Geneti: Research Funding. Nademanee:Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Masszi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Agura:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Holowiecki:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Abidi:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Chen:Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board. Stiff:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Viviani:Italfarmaco SpA: Consultancy; Teva Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda International: Consultancy. Carella:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Osmanov:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sureda:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Huebner:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larsen:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunder:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership

Analysis of data collected in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Registry on a cohort of lymphoma patients receiving plerixafor

Plerixafor + granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is administered to patients with lymphoma who are poor mobilizers of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in Europe. This international, multicenter, non-interventional registry study (NCT01362972) evaluated long-term follow-up of patients with lymphoma who received plerixafor for HSC mobilization versus other mobilization methods. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between comparison groups. The following mobilization regimens were compared: G-CSF + plerixafor (G + P) versus G-CSF alone; G + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G + C); and G-CSF + plerixafor + chemotherapy (G + P + C) versus G + C. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR). Overall, 313/3749 (8.3%) eligible patients were mobilized with plerixafor-containing regimens. After propensity score matching, 70 versus 36 patients were matched in the G + P versus G-CSF alone cohort, 124 versus 124 in the G + P versus G + C cohort, and 130 versus 130 in the G + P + C versus G + C cohort. For both PFS and OS, the upper bound of confidence interval for the hazard ratio was >1.3 for all comparisons, implying that non-inferiority was not demonstrated. No major differences in PFS, OS, and CIR were observed between the plerixafor and comparison groups