DOCSLIB.ORG

Total Body Irradiation in the Era of New Radiotherapy Techniques

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Total Body Irradiation in the Era of New Radiotherapy Techniques Open Access Journal of Cancer & Oncology MEDWIN PUBLISHERS ISSN: 2578-4625 Committed to Create Value for Researchers Total Body Irradiation in the Era of New Radiotherapy Techniques Hassani W*, Saoudi A, Ferhane F, Alami Z, Boufaha T and Hassouni K Mini Review Radiotherapy department, Hassan II Hospital, Morrocco Volume 5 Issue 1 Received Date: April 12, 2021 *Corresponding author: Hassani Wissal, MD, Radiotherapy Department, Hassan II Hospital, Published Date: May 26, 2021 Fes, Morocco; Email: [email protected] DOI: 10.23880/oajco-16000172 Abstract Total body irradiation (TBI), in combination with chemotherapy which is most often cyclophosphamide, is widely used since it part for conditioning regimen for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) undergoing was introduces in the fifties by E.D.Thomas as a preparatory regimen before bone marrow transplant. Even if it is an important hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, it is responsible for many side effects. New irradiation technique, tomotherapy and VMAT achieved a significant dose reduction to the OARs and the feasibility of dose escalation in a BMT conditioning regimen. Keywords: Total Body Irradiation; Lymphoid Leukemia; Chemotherapy; Acute lymphoid leukemia; helical tomographic Abbreviations: TBI: Total Body Irradiation, AML: Acute same area that chemotherapy does, in sanctuary organs that Myeloid Leukemia; ALL: Acute Lymphoid Leukemia; HCT: are not reached by chemotherapy drugs, mainly the brain Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; RT: Radiation Therapy; CML: Chronic Myeloid Leukemia; SSD: Source- Surface Distance; IMRT: Intensity Modulated Radiation and testes [2]. Therapy; PTV: Planning Treatment Volumes; OAR: Excluding transplantation conditioning treatment, it is responsible for Organs At Risk; MM: Multiple Myeloma; VMAT: Volumetric manyEven side though effects. TBI The is most an efficientcommon part acute of toxicbone effects marrow of Arc Therapy. mucositis, diarrhea, fatigue, decreased appetite, erythema, TBI include parotitis, nausea and vomiting, dry mouth and Introduction esophagitis, and alopecia. These toxic effects are usually Total body irradiation (TBI), in combination with chemotherapy which is most often cyclophosphamide, dysfunction,transient and decreasedwell manageable bone [2].mineral In the density opposite, , endocrine late effect such us cataract [3], gonadal failure , thyroid and kidney E.D.Thomas as a preparatory regimen before bone marrow transplant.is widely used It’s an since important it was part introduces for conditioning in the fifties regimen by Asdisorders, a result, cardiometabolic more targeted formstraits andof TBI veno-occlusive are currently disease being for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or acute and specially interstitial pneumonitis [4] are still challenging. lymphoid leukemia (ALL) undergoing hematopoietic stem tomographic IMRT. evaluated in clinical trials using VMAT IMRT and helical cell transplantation (HCT), usually allogeneic, to provide techniques in bone marrow transplantation. donorboth immunosuppressivemarrow and aims to anderadicate cytotoxic malignant effects cells [1]. in TBIthe In this article, we review the literature about TBI IMRT induces immunosuppression to prevent the rejection of Total Body Irradiation in the Era of New Radiotherapy Techniques J Cancer Oncol 2 Open Access Journal of Cancer & Oncology Total Body Irradiation • Techniques using two opposite lateral beams where the shoulders play the role of compensator. Rational • Techniques using the combination of the two. conditioning regimens aimed to eradicate malignant cells , TBI has traditionally been part of myeloablative rejection of donor hematopoietic cells. Unlike chemotherapy, provide powerful means of immunosuppression and prevent indelivery drug absorption, of radiation metabolism, therapy (RT) biodistribution, to the tumor site or clearance does not depend on blood supply and is not influenced by variability such as brain and testis. kinetics [1]. It also had the advantage to reach sanctuary sites Indications Acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) remains the main indication of a TBI based conditioning regimen in bone marrow transplantation [2], Current indications include patient achieving first remission with Philadelphia chromosome– positive disease, or in first remission with Figure 1: Thickness measurements for TBI planning. notPhiladelphia respond tochromosome–negative initial induction chemotherapy; disease with being poor in risk features; having disease that is refractory or does Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Bone remission after treatment for relapse; or having disease that Marrow Transplantation remainsOther refractory diseases, after such relapse as acute [1]. myelogenous leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), multiple myeloma based 3D planning, intensity modulated radiation therapy Increasing numbers of centers have begun to use CT- based conditioning regimen, but the indications remain (MM), and Hodgkin’s disease, might benefit from a TBI- uniformity and organ sparing. Soon after helical tomographic (IMRT), and inverse planning in an effort to improve dose controversial [4]. Techniques (FigureIMRT was 2a, introduced2b) into the clinic, using it to deliver TBI with conformal avoidance of normal organs was proposed 60C and linear accelerator based techniques were the includefirst techniques the thickness, of TBI the that distance were described, from soles and of theythe feet, are andstill thewidely distance used from[5]. Measurements central axis at thefor followingplanning purposesanatomic points: top of head, forehead, chin, suprasternal notch, ankles, and toes. (Figure 1). Differences in separation along thexiphoid, patient’s umbilicus, length central can result axis, inpelvis, dose thigh, heterogeneity knees, calves, that can exceed 10%-20%. The primary limitation of standard positioninglinear accelerators patients is at the a superiormaximum SSD, field generally size of 200–60040 × 40 cm at a standard source-surface distance (SSD). However, the treatment room allows it, patients are treated by a cm, allowed for an enlarging of the field size. If the size of • singleTechniques field. Otherwise, using twomultiple opposite fields parallel are required.3 anterior main and categories can be described [4]: Figure 2A tomographic (tomotherapy). posterior beams using one or two sources [6]. : Conformal-avoidance TBI delivered with helical Hassani W, et al. Total Body Irradiation in the Era of New Radiotherapy Techniques. J Cancer Oncol Copyright© Hassani W, et al. 2021, 5(1): 000172. 3 Open Access Journal of Cancer & Oncology TBI with Volumetric arc Therapy (VMAT) of the dose to OAR. Springer et al published in 2016 their TBI with VMAT seems to provide significant decrease thestudy lungs evaluating of 13–27%. TBI with In one VMAT patient, in 7 patient. presenting It showed with renal that using VMAT achieved reduction of the mean dose received by insufficiency, the mean dose to the kidneys has been reduced upof 43–52%.time of 8 Everymonts patient (2.3–15 suffered months), from one gradepatient 3 diedmucositis from and one from bladder inflammation. With a mean follow- refractory disease, one from relapse and the five others live diseaselimitations free [12]. imposes a treatment in two parts for most of the patients. The HT maximum field is limited to 60 × 160 cm which Figure 2B Most of the team have chosen to treat the upper body with : Optimized VMAT-TBI plan. HT and the lower body (limbs) with AP-PA fields, which leads Concept to junction field uncertainties in the dosimetry calculation. The primary limitation of TBI is its toxicity to organs Moreover, a recent case of radiation dermatitis has been reported and is an example of the uncertainties of the fields junctionTreatment [13]. Duration totalat risk, body especially irradiation to theare lungs,laborious, heart, time-consuming liver and kidneys. and In addition, Nevertheless, current accepted techniques of due to the non-conformity of beam-application with the time: 8 h for HT-TMI and 12–16 h for HT-TMLI. Studies report cumbersome, and lead to significant acute and late toxicity Nevertheless, TMI and TMLI request a long contouring to 90 min with experience and a mean beam on time inability to individually spare organs at risk. The use of an average in-room time of 2 h, which could be decreased TBI.VMAT IMRT [7,8], and helical tomographic IMRT [9,10] are currently being evaluated as ways to deliver more targeted approximatelyConclusion 50 min [10]. TBI with Helical Tomotherapy Although TBI continues to be an important part of Penagaricano, et al. (2011); Gruen et al. (2013) s conditioning regimens for many patients, its use is declining report the feasibility of TBI performed with HT. They whole body excluding organs at risk (OARs). In 2017, R. increasedfor several use possible of reduced-intensity reasons, including conditioning increased regimens. use of Suna,both definedet al. published planning the treatment First French volumes experiences (PTV) ofas total the chemotherapyonly myeloablative conditioning regimens body irradiations using helical TomoTherapy. Total body reduction to the OARs and feasibility of dose escalation irradiation consisted in a single fraction of 2 Gy. Planning inThe a useBMT ofconditioning IMRT techniques regimen. allowed The outcomes significant of thesedose phase III trials. target volume was divided in two due to the limited irradiation techniques should be confirmed by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Progress Report
    ARMY M E DI CA L s E RVICE- ARM1.950117.018 RESEARCH PROGRESS REPORT THE INFORMATION CGNTAINED HEREIN IS UWCLASSlFlED BUT HAY NOT BE PUBLISKED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE CHAl RHAN. HEDlCbL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD, OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL. @VkRTMENT OF THE AMY. ANNUAL REPORT I JULY 1952 -30 JUNE 1953 MEDICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL U. S. ARMY Inveatigatar Project or Project &!e Title -Number Locatloo PJ. ybical Hfects of the ktanic Rcab..... .. .. ..&55)-'.)&(j3 BJUatlm ssd !Chcmd. Burna. e.. .. , . .6-53-0ti-o& RdiatiOn Them BW SwCand Medical kBptct6 Of IaliZing Radiation.. +. .6-59-0&-14 zftects of Irradiaticm mecto of lmizing Rdiatim Sfect of Irradlatim m SIngk-Cell Orgauisnre 1miurtiOn Effects Biologic and Medical mtsof ICaizlng Radiation ~ets-OBlmaDoee Ratio FP Surfaces Ccmtsminated with Piisicu Products matneut of Irrdiatiaa Sickness vith Spleen Emzgenate ard BQlc MrrOy Relative Biologic Effectiveness of 4 Mev G- Rays Imizatlon Effects . Wet of Rediatlaa m Irm Metabolism and Eca¶topoieEiE pathoiogic study of Central Barvous System Effecti of Ionizhg Rsdiatim m WythroCytes -si# uf Irdirect Bfiect of RwIiattFm BunrS.. ,, * . .. * * * m. .. .. .. .. , . .6-59-12-21 'Ibcrad Burns Cllaic~LStudies in lbarsL Injuries Ccllplications Butn Death6 Air EvsCUatiOIl Wiscellaneoua Clinid Studies wttabolic Chengea af3.er Inftpr DeterminatiOll of aLood Valtoe, Extracellulm Fluid Spece, and Hem Water Equilibration Times 5n Dcga Acutely Depleted cd 5 to 1%of Total gxcbange&le Ex4y Potasaim
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Landmarks in Clinical Transplantation: Conclusions from the Consensus Conference at the University of California, Los Angeles
    World J. Surg.24, 834-843, 2000 DOl: 10.1007/5002680010134 WORLD Journal of SURGERY © .lOOO by rhe Societe Internationale J(" Ch!wrgie Historic Landmarks in Clinical Transplantation: Conclusions from the Consensus Conference at the University of California, Los Angeles Carl G. Groth, M.D., Ph.D.,l Leslie B. Brent, B.Sc., Ph.D} Roy Y. Caine, M.D} Jean B. Dausset, M.D., Ph.D.,4 Robert A. Good, M.D., Ph.D.,s Joseph E. Murray, M.D.,6 Norman E. Shumway, M.D., Ph.D} Robert S. Schwartz, M.D} Thomas E. Starzl, M.D., Ph.D} Paul I. Terasaki, Ph.D.,l° E. Donnall Thomas, M.D}l Jon J. van Rood, M.D., Ph.DY 1Department of Transplantation Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge Hospital, SE-141 86 Huddinge, Sweden 230 Hugo Road, Tufnell Park, London N19 5EU, UK 'Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Douglas House Annexe, 18 Trumpington Road, Cambridge CB2 ZAH, UK "Foundation Jean Dausset-C.E.P.H., 27 rue Juliette Dodu, 75010 Paris Cedex, France 5Department of Pediatrics, Division of Allergy and Immunology, All Children's Hospital, 801 Sixth Street South, SI. Petersburg, Florida 33701, USA "Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA 'Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Falk Cardiovascular Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, California 94305-5247, USA 'The New England Journal of Medicine, 10 Shattuck Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02115-6094, USA 9Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Thomas E. Starzl Transplantation Institute, 3601 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA 1012835 Parkyns Street, Los Angeles, California 90049, USA lIDepartment of Medicine, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue N, PO Box 19024, Seattle, Washington 98109-1024, USA 12Department of Immunohematology and Blood Bank, University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract.
    [Show full text]
  • ©Ferrata Storti Foundation
    Haematologica 2000; 85:839-847 Transplantation & Cell Therapy original paper Allogeneic transplantation of G-CSF mobilized peripheral blood stem cells from unrelated donors: a retrospective analysis. MARTIN BORNHÄUSER,* CATRIN THEUSER,* SILKE SOUCEK,* KRISTINA HÖLIG,* THOMAS KLINGEBIEL,° WOLFGANG BLAU,# ALEXANDER FAUSER,# VOLKER RUNDE,@ WOLFGANG SCHWINGER,^ CLAUDIA RUTT,§ GERHARD EHNINGER* *Medizinische Klinik I, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden; °Kinderklinik Eberhard Karls Universität, Tübin- gen; #Klinik für Knochenmarktransplantation, Idar-Oberstein. @Klinik für Knochenmarktransplantation, Essen; ^Univer- sitätskinderklinik, Graz, Austria for the §Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, Tübingen (DKMS), Germany ABSTRACT Background and Objectives. Allogeneic peripheral either unmanipulated or CD34 selected. Prospective blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) from studies comparing BMT with PBSCT from unrelated matched siblings has lead to clinical results compa- donors are needed in defined disease categories. rable to those of standard bone marrow transplan- ©2000 Ferrata Storti Foundation tation (BMT). We report the outcome of 79 patients transplanted with PBSC from unrelated donors. Key words: allogeneic transplantation, peripheral blood stem Design and Methods. In 61 cases PBSC were used cells, unrelated donor for primary transplantation whereas 18 patients were treated for relapse or graft-failure. In 35 patients receiving primary transplants, T-cell deple- here are several reports on the outcome of tion (TCD) using CD34
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas E. Starzl
    145 MY THIRTY-FIVE YEAR VIEW OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION Thomas E. Starzl Address: Department of Surgery Falk Clinic University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine 3601 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 ----~-----------------. 146 Thomas E. Starzl 147 MY THIRTY-FIVE YEAR VIEW OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION Thomas E. Starzl In my earlier historical reassessments in 1936 by the Russian, Yu Yu Voronoy (13, (1-3) and those of Caine (4,5), Murray (6), translation provided in 10). The technique Moore (7), and Groth (8), the dawn of of renal transplantation which became transplantation was defined as the turn of today's standard was developed inde­ this century, in part because these reviews pendently by three different French sur­ emphasized kidney transplantation. Kahan geons, Charles Dubost (14), Rene Kuss has exposed the incompleteness of this (15),and Marceau Serve lie (16) and perspective by tracing the roots of reported in 1951. A number of the kidneys transplantation into antiquity (9). Not­ were taken from criminals shortly after their withstanding the early traces, evolution of execution by guillotine. John Merrill, the the modern field is a phenomenon of the Boston nephrologist had seen the French last 40 years. During the first part of this operation while travelling in Europe in the time, I picked up the trail of renal transplan­ early 1950s as was later mentioned by the tation and sta.rted a new one with liver re­ surgeon, David Hume (17) in his description placement. From 1958 onward, liver of the beginning (in 1951) of the Peter Bent transplantation played an increasingly Brigham kidney transplant program.
    [Show full text]
  • A Robust and Rapid Xenograft Model to Assess Efficacy Of
    A robust and rapid xenograft model to assess efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents for human acute myeloid leukemia E Saland, H Boutzen, R Castellano, L Pouyet, E Griessinger, C Larrue, F de Toni, S Scotland, Mathieu David, G Danet-Desnoyers, et al. To cite this version: E Saland, H Boutzen, R Castellano, L Pouyet, E Griessinger, et al.. A robust and rapid xenograft model to assess efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents for human acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Cancer Journal, Nature Publishing Group, 2015, 5 (e297), 10.1038/bcj.2015.19. hal-01219119 HAL Id: hal-01219119 https://hal-amu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01219119 Submitted on 22 Oct 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. OPEN Citation: Blood Cancer Journal (2015) 5, e297; doi:10.1038/bcj.2015.19 www.nature.com/bcj ORIGINAL ARTICLE A robust and rapid xenograft model to assess efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents for human acute myeloid leukemia E Saland1,2, H Boutzen1,2, R Castellano3,4,5,6, L Pouyet3,4,5,6, E Griessinger7,8, C Larrue1,2, F de Toni1,2, S Scotland1,2, M David1,2, G Danet-Desnoyers9, F Vergez1,2, Y Barreira10, Y Collette3,4,5,6, C Récher1,2,11,12 and J-E Sarry1,2,12 Relevant preclinical mouse models are crucial to screen new therapeutic agents for acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
    [Show full text]
  • Renal Transplantation
    \S~\ Renal Transplantation Ron Shapiro, MD Director, Renal Transplantation Thomas E. Starzl Transplantati<m Institute Associate Professor of Surgery University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Richard L. Simmons, MD Distinguished Service Professor George Vance Foster Professor and Chair Department of Surgery University of Pittsburgh Medical Director University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Thomas E. Stanl, MD, PhD Director Thomas E. Starzl Transplantation Institute Distinguished Service Professor of Surgery University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania .•F= - .--- - .. \pplcton & Lange Stamford. Cunnecticut History of Renal Transplantation Thomas E. Starzl / Anthony}. Demetris Renal transplantation carne from a series of steps that began to appear in the lit­ erature at the beginning of the 20th century. The steps were small, widely spread in time, and usually overlooked or condemned. As late as 1961, the Nobel Laureate, Macfarland Burnet, wrote in the New Eng/and Journal of Medicine that ". much thought has been given to ways by which tissues or organs not genetically and anti­ genetically identical with the patient might be made to survive and function in the alien environment. On the whole, the present outlook is highly unfavorable to suc­ cess ....,,1 This opinion was published on the eve of the successful clinical renal trans plantations in 1962 and 1963 that extended this procedure beyond the occa­ sional identical and fraternal twin cases of the mid and late 1950s. Even then, these efforts provoked editorials questioning their inherent feasibility as well as their eth­ ical basis.:! • TWENTIETH CENTURY BEGINNINGS Heterotransplantation (Xenotransplantation) In fact. the trials of the early 1960s were already late in a long, but at first slowly un­ folding, story of whole-organ transplantation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mini Review Genomic Screening and Complications of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Has the Time Come?
    Bone Marrow Transplantation (2005) 35, 1–16 & 2005 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0268-3369/05 $30.00 www.nature.com/bmt Mini review Genomic screening and complications of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: has the time come? AR Kallianpur Department of Medicine, Center for Health Services Research, and TN Valley GRECC, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and TN Valley Health Services VA Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA Summary: undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for life-threatening disorders is overshadowed by the very The occurrence of toxic complications following hemato- real threat of short-term, often fatal, complications poietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)is highly variable resulting from the transplant regimen and graft-versus- and dependent on a multitude of host, donor, and treatment host disease (GVHD). However, significant variation is factors. The increasingly broad indications for HSCT and observed between similarly treated individuals in the devel- the need to provide this treatment option to older and/or opment of complications. It is an appealing concept, there- more debilitated patients emphasizes the importance of fore, and one to which many clinicians now subscribe, that a refining our methods of predicting and ameliorating these significant portion of this variability has a genetic basis. toxicities. Late complications (occurring after day 100)also Identifying important genetic variables will allow for better pose a threat to quality of life after HSCT. Genetic prediction of HSCT-related outcomes, and in the process of polymorphisms in key molecular pathways in the host are identifying these susceptibilities, it may also be possible to likely to contribute significantly to the observed variability in gain sufficient knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology the development HSCT-associated complications.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Outcome After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Myelofibrosis
    ARTICLE Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Long-term outcome after allogeneic Ferrata Storti Foundation hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelofibrosis Marie Robin,1 Liesbeth C. de Wreede,2 Christine Wolschke,3 Johannes Schetelig,4 Diderik-Jan Eikema,5 Maria Teresa Van Lint,6 Nina Simone Knelange,7 Dietrich Beelen,8 Arne Brecht,9 Dietger Niederwieser,10 Antonin Vitek,11 Wolfgang Bethge,12 Renate Arnold,13 Jürgen Finke,14 Liisa Volin,15 Ibrahim Yakoub-Agha,16 Arnon Nagler,17 Xavier Poiré,18 Hermann Einsele,19 Haematologica 2019 20 21 22 23 Volume 104(9):1782-1788 Patrice Chevallier, Ernst Holler, Per Ljungman, Stephen Robinson, Alekxandar Radujkovic,24 Donal McLornan,25 Yves Chalandon26 and Nicolaus Kröger3 1Hôpital Saint-Louis, APHP, Université Paris 7, Paris, France; 2Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, LUMC, Leiden, the Netherlands and DKMS CTU, Dresden, Germany; 3University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 4Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Universitätsklinikum Dresden, Dresden, Germany; 5EBMT Statistical Unit, Leiden, the Netherlands; 6Ospedale San Martino, Genova, Italy; 7EBMT Data Office, Leiden, the Netherlands; 8University Hospital, Essen, Germany; 9Helios HSK Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany; 10University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; 11Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, Prague, Czech Republic; 12Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; 13Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 14Division of Medicine I, Hematology, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, University of Freiburg, Freiburg,
    [Show full text]
  • A Randomized Phase II Trial of Tacrolimus, Mycophenolate Mofetil and Sirolimus After Non-Myeloablative Unrelated Donor Transplantation
    Stem Cell Transplantation SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX A randomized phase II trial of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and sirolimus after non-myeloablative unrelated donor transplantation Brian Kornblit, 1 David G. Maloney, 1,2 Barry E. Storer, 1,3 Michael B. Maris, 4 Lars Vindeløv, 5 Parameswaran Hari, 6 Amelia A. Langston, 7 Michael A. Pulsipher, 8 Wolfgang A. Bethge, 9 Thomas R. Chauncey, 10 Thoralf Lange, 11 Finn B. Petersen, 12 Kai Hübel, 13 Ann E. Woolfrey, 1,2 Mary E.D. Flowers, 1,2 Rainer Storb, 1,2 and Brenda M. Sandmaier, 1,2 1Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA; 2Division of Oncology, Department of Medi - cine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; 3Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; 4Col - orado Blood Cancer Institute, Denver, CO, USA; 5Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; 6Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA; 7Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; 8Division of Hematology and Hematologic Malignancies, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 9University of Tübingen Medical Center, Germany; 10 VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA; 11 University of Leipzig, Germany; 12 LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; and 13 Univer - sity of Cologne, Germany ©2014 Ferrata Storti Foundation. This is an open-access paper. doi:10.3324/haematol.2014.108340 Manuscript received on April 7, 2014. Manuscript accepted on July 25, 2014. Correspondence: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTAL DATA (ONLINE ONLY) FOR A randomized phase II trial of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and sirolimus after nonmyeloablative unrelated donor transplantation Brian Kornblit1, David G.
    [Show full text]
  • CIBMTR Center Reference Guide
    CIBMTR Center Reference Guide CIBMTR CENTER REFERENCE GUIDE OVERVIEW OF CIBMTR Stem Cell Therapeutic Outcomes Database (SCTOD) Levels of Participation • Transplant Essential Data (TED) Only Centers • Comprehensive Report Form (CRF) Centers • BMT CTN Participation o Reimbursement CENTER MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION IRB Approvals EBMT Centers CIBMTR ACCESS FormsNet™2.0 • SecurID® and Log‐in CIBMTR Portal • Data Back to Centers (DBtC) • FormsNet™ Center Volume Data TRAINING AND RESOURCES Mentor Program Data Manager Education Tips from the Network Cibmtr.org website STUDIES CIBMTR Observational Studies Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) Resource for Clinical Investigations in Blood and Marrow Transplant (RCI BMT) Study of long‐term complications of Kepivance (KGF) Comparison of intravenous busulfan versus total body irradiation for pretransplant conditioning (Otsuka Study) ATTACHMENTS A: CIBMTR Working Committees B: Glossary of Abbreviations C: New Center Information Sheet D: Center Change Form E: Forms Submission Process ENCLOSURES CIBMTR Progress Report CD Revision 2.0 – Page 1 OVERVIEW OF CIBMTR The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) collaborates with the global scientific community to advance hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy research worldwide. A combined research program of the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), the CIBMTR facilitates critical, cutting‐edge clinical research that has led to increased survival and an enriched quality of life for thousands of patients. The research is accomplished through scientific and statistical expertise, a large network of transplant centers and clinical database of more than 300,000 transplant recipients. CIBMTR is comprised of four main programs: observational research, clinical trials support, immunobiology and statistical methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Lung Transplantation After Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation: a Pan-European Experience
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE RARE LUNG DISEASE Lung transplantation after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a pan-European experience Mark Greer1,2, Cristina Berastegui3, Peter Jaksch4, Christian Benden5, John Aubert 6, Antoine Roux7, Elodie Lhuillier8, Sandrine Hirschi9, Martine Reynaud-Gaubert10, François Philit11, Johanna Claustre12, Pierre LePalud7, Marc Stern7, Christiane Knoop13, Robin Vos14, Erik Verschuuren15, Andrew Fisher16, Gerdt Riise17, Lennart Hansson18, Martin Iversen19, Pekka Hämmäinen20, Hans Wedel21, Jacqueline Smits22, Jens Gottlieb1,2 and Are M. Holm23,24,25 @ERSpublications Lung transplantation is feasible in selected stem cell transplant recipients http://ow.ly/z4vn30h6gao Cite this article as: Greer M, Berastegui C, Jaksch P, et al. Lung transplantation after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a pan-European experience. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1701330 [https://doi.org/10.1183/ 13993003.01330-2017]. ABSTRACT Late-onset noninfectious pulmonary complications (LONIPCs) affect 6% of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) recipients within 5 years, conferring subsequent 5-year survival of 50%. Lung transplantation is rarely performed in this setting due to concomitant extrapulmonary morbidity, excessive immunosuppression and concerns about recurring malignancy being considered contraindications. This study assesses survival in highly selected patients undergoing lung transplantation for LONIPCs after SCT. SCT patients undergoing lung transplantation at 20 European centres between 1996 and 2014 were included. Clinical data pre- and post-lung transplantation were reviewed. Propensity score-matched controls were generated from the Eurotransplant and Scandiatransplant registries. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression models evaluating predictors of graft loss were performed. Graft survival at 1, 3 and 5 years of 84%, 72% and 67%, respectively, among the 105 SCT patients proved comparable to controls (p=0.75).
    [Show full text]
  • TBI During BM and SCT: Review of the Past, Discussion of the Present and Consideration of Future Directions
    Bone Marrow Transplantation (2011) 46, 475–484 & 2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 0268-3369/11 www.nature.com/bmt REVIEW TBI during BM and SCT: review of the past, discussion of the present and consideration of future directions CE Hill-Kayser, JP Plastaras, Z Tochner and E Glatstein Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA TBIhasbeenusedwidelyinthesettingofBMToverthe described survivors of accidental irradiation who received past 3 decades. Early research demonstrated feasibility matched marrow infusions.7 Clinical and animal research and efficacy in the myeloablative setting, in preparation continued over the next decade, in parallel with the first for allogenic BMT and later for autologous stem cell development of clinical measures to support patients with rescue. As experience with TBI increased, its dual roles of decreased marrow function: these included antibiotic and myeloablation and immunosuppression came to be recog- antifungal agents, parenteral nutrition and blood transfusion nized. Toxicity associated with myeloablative TBI remains technology that prolonged survival during the acute pretrans- significant, and this treatment is generally reserved for plant and post transplant phases of treatment. In the 1970s, younger patients with excellent performance status. Reduced several groups demonstrated strong clinical results in leukemic intensity conditioning regimens may be useful to provide patients receiving allogeneic BMT following chemoradiation8– immunosuppression for patients who are not candidates for 11 (Table 1). At this time, BMT were limited to patients with a myeloablative treatment. Efforts to reduce toxicity through sibling or related donor found to be histocompatible based on protection of normal tissue using methods of normal tissue human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing.
    [Show full text]