4.5 Article

The EBMT activity survey 2007 with focus on allogeneic HSCT for AML and novel cellular therapies

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 275-291

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2009.7

关键词

hematopoietic SCT; Europe; transplant rates; acute myeloid leukemia; mesenchymal stem cells; novel cellular therapies

资金

  1. European Leukemia Net [LSH-2002-2.2.0-3]
  2. National Research Foundation [3200B0-118176]
  3. the Swiss Cancer League, the Regional Cancer League and the Horton Foundation
  4. EBMT
  5. Amgen Europe, F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Gilead Sciences UK
  6. Miltenyl Biotec GmbH
  7. Schering-Plough International Inc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 2007 report describes the current status of HSCT activity in Europe, highlights the increasing role of allogeneic HSCT in treatment of AML and gives the first quantitative information on novel cellular therapies. In 2007, there were 25563 first HSCTs, 10 072 allogeneic (39%), 15 491 autologous (61%) and 3606 additional transplants reported from 613 centers in 42 countries. The main indications were leukemias (8061 (32%; 89% allogeneic)); lymphomas (14 627 (57%; 89% autologous)), solid tumors (1488 (6%; 96% autologous)) and nonmalignant disorders (1302 (5%; 91% allogeneic)). Peripheral blood was the main source of stem cells for autologous HSCT (98%) and the predominant source for allogeneic HSCT (71%). Among allogeneic HSCTs, the number of unrelated donor grafts equaled the number of HLA-identical siblingdonor grafts for the first time (47% each). AML was the most frequent indication for allogeneic HSCT ( 32% of all allogeneic HSCTs), with an increase of 247 (8%). Information on novel cellular therapies was collected for the first time; there were 212 mesenchymal SCTs and 212 HSCTs for nonhematopoietic use. The indications for the latter were cardiovascular disorders (97; 46%), neurological disorders (94; 44%) and tissue repair (21; 10%). These data illustrate the expanding role of cellular therapies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据