| 1. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
-
- 2017
-
In: Physical Review D. - 2470-0010 .- 2470-0029. ; 96:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Radivoyevitch, Tomas, et al.
(author)
-
Risk of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome after autotransplants for lymphomas and plasma cell myeloma
- 2018
-
In: Leukemia research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0145-2126 .- 1873-5835. ; 74, s. 130-136
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Exposures to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiations increase risks of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).Methods: 9028 recipients of hematopoietic cell autotransplants (1995-2010) for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL; n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL; n=3546) and plasma cell myeloma (PCM; n=4566), reported to the CIBMTR, were analyzed for risk of subsequent AML or MDS.Results: 335 MDS/ AML cases were diagnosed posttransplant (3.7%). Variables associated with an increased risk for AML or MDS in multivariate analyses were: (1) conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone for HL (HR=4.0; 95% confidence interval [1.4, 11.6]) and NHL (HR=2.5 [1.1, 2.5]); (2) >= 3 versus 1 line of chemotherapy for NHL (HR=1.9 [1.3, 2.8]); and (3) subjects with NHL transplanted in 2005-2010 versus 1995-1999 (HR=2.1 [1.5, 3.1]). Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data, we found risks for AML/ MDS in HL, NHL and PCM to be 5-10 times the background rate. In contrast, relative risks were 10-50 for AML and approximately 100 for MDS in the autotransplant cohort.Conclusions: There are substantial risks of AML and MDS after autotransplants for HL, NHL and PCM.
|
|
| 7. |
- Hong, Sanghee, et al.
(author)
-
Community health status and outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in the United States
- 2021
-
In: Cancer. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0008-543X .- 1097-0142. ; 127:4, s. 609-618
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The association of community factors and outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has not been comprehensively described. Using the County Health Rankings and Roadmaps (CHRR) and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), this study evaluated the impact of community health status on allogeneic HCT outcomes.Methods: This study included 18,544 adult allogeneic HCT recipients reported to the CIBMTR by 170 US centers in 2014-2016. Sociodemographic, environmental, and community indicators were derived from the CHRR, an aggregate community risk score was created, and scores were assigned to each patient (patient community risk score [PCS]) and transplant center (center community risk score [CCS]). Higher scores indicated less healthy communities. The impact of PCS and CCS on patient outcomes after allogeneic HCT was studied.Results: The median age was 55 years (range, 18-83 years). The median PCS was -0.21 (range, -1.37 to 2.10; standard deviation [SD], 0.42), and the median CCS was -0.13 (range, -1.04 to 0.96; SD, 0.40). In multivariable analyses, a higher PCS was associated with inferior survival (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD increase, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00-1.08;P= .0089). Among hematologic malignancies, a tendency toward inferior survival was observed with a higher PCS (HR, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00-1.08;P= .0102); a higher PCS was associated with higher nonrelapse mortality (NRM; HR, 1.08; 99% CI, 1.02-1.15;P= .0004). CCS was not significantly associated with survival, relapse, or NRM.Conclusions: Patients residing in counties with a worse community health status have inferior survival as a result of an increased risk of NRM after allogeneic HCT. There was no association between the community health status of the transplant center location and allogeneic HCT outcomes.
|
|
| 8. |
- Knudsen, Gitte M, et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the content and format of PET brain data in publications and archives : A consensus paper
- 2020
-
In: Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. - : SAGE Publications. - 0271-678X .- 1559-7016. ; 40:8, s. 1576-1585
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- It is a growing concern that outcomes of neuroimaging studies often cannot be replicated. To counteract this, the magnetic resonance (MR) neuroimaging community has promoted acquisition standards and created data sharing platforms, based on a consensus on how to organize and share MR neuroimaging data. Here, we take a similar approach to positron emission tomography (PET) data. To facilitate comparison of findings across studies, we first recommend publication standards for tracer characteristics, image acquisition, image preprocessing, and outcome estimation for PET neuroimaging data. The co-authors of this paper, representing more than 25 PET centers worldwide, voted to classify information as mandatory, recommended, or optional. Second, we describe a framework to facilitate data archiving and data sharing within and across centers. Because of the high cost of PET neuroimaging studies, sample sizes tend to be small and relatively few sites worldwide have the required multidisciplinary expertise to properly conduct and analyze PET studies. Data sharing will make it easier to combine datasets from different centers to achieve larger sample sizes and stronger statistical power to test hypotheses. The combining of datasets from different centers may be enhanced by adoption of a common set of best practices in data acquisition and analysis.
|
|
