| 1. |
- Galon, Jerome, et al.
(författare)
-
Cancer classification using the Immunoscore : a worldwide task force
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Translational Medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1479-5876. ; 10, s. 205-
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Prediction of clinical outcome in cancer is usually achieved by histopathological evaluation of tissue samples obtained during surgical resection of the primary tumor. Traditional tumor staging (AJCC/UICC-TNM classification) summarizes data on tumor burden (T), presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that clinical outcome can significantly vary among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information, and does not predict response to therapy. Recent literature has alluded to the importance of the host immune system in controlling tumor progression. Thus, evidence supports the notion to include immunological biomarkers, implemented as a tool for the prediction of prognosis and response to therapy. Accumulating data, collected from large cohorts of human cancers, has demonstrated the impact of immune-classification, which has a prognostic value that may add to the significance of the AJCC/UICC TNM-classification. It is therefore imperative to begin to incorporate the ` Immunoscore' into traditional classification, thus providing an essential prognostic and potentially predictive tool. Introduction of this parameter as a biomarker to classify cancers, as part of routine diagnostic and prognostic assessment of tumors, will facilitate clinical decision-making including rational stratification of patient treatment. Equally, the inherent complexity of quantitative immunohistochemistry, in conjunction with protocol variation across laboratories, analysis of different immune cell types, inconsistent region selection criteria, and variable ways to quantify immune infiltration, all underline the urgent requirement to reach assay harmonization. In an effort to promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings, an international task force was initiated. This review represents a follow-up of the announcement of this initiative, and of the J Transl Med. editorial from January 2012. Immunophenotyping of tumors may provide crucial novel prognostic information. The results of this international validation may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM-I (TNM-Immune).
|
|
| 2. |
- Mehta, Rohtesh S., et al.
(författare)
-
Composite GRFS and CRFS Outcomes After Adult Alternative Donor HCT
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - : American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 38:18, s. 2062-2076
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE There is no consensus on the best choice of an alternative donor (umbilical cord blood [UCB], haploidentical, one-antigen mismatched [7/8]-bone marrow [BM], or 7/8-peripheral blood [PB]) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for patients lacking an HLA-matched related or unrelated donor.METHODS We report composite end points of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD)-free relapse-free survival (CRFS) in 2,198 patients who underwent UCB (n = 838), haploidentical (n = 159), 7/8-BM (n = 241), or 7/8-PB (n = 960) HCT. All groups were divided by myeloablative conditioning (MAC) intensity or reduced intensity conditioning (RIC), except haploidentical group in which most received RIC. To account for multiple testing, P < .0071 in multivariable analysis and P < .00025 in direct pairwise comparisons were considered statistically significant.RESULTS In multivariable analysis, haploidentical group had the best GRFS, CRFS, and overall survival (OS). In the direct pairwise comparison of other groups, among those who received MAC, there was no difference in GRFS or CRFS among UCB, 7/8-BM, and 7/8-PB with serotherapy (alemtuzumab or antithymocyte globulin) groups. In contrast, the 7/8-PB without serotherapy group had significantly inferior GRFS, higher cGVHD, and a trend toward worse CRFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.69; P = .002) than the 7/8-BM group and higher cGVHD and trend toward inferior CRFS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.63; P = .0006) than the UCB group. Among patients with RIC, all groups had significantly inferior GRFS and CRFS compared with the haploidentical group.CONCLUSION Recognizing the limitations of a registry retrospective analysis and the possibility of center selection bias in choosing donors, our data support the use of UCB, 7/8-BM, or 7/8-PB (with serotherapy) grafts for patients undergoing MAC HCT and haploidentical grafts for patients undergoing RIC HCT. The haploidentical group had the best GRFS, CRFS, and OS of all groups.
|
|
| 3. |
- Mehta, Rohtesh S., et al.
(författare)
-
GRFS and CRFS in alternative donor hematopoietic cell transplantation for pediatric patients with acute leukemia
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Blood Advances. - : American Society of Hematology. - 2473-9529 .- 2473-9537. ; 3:9, s. 1441-1449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We report graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) (a composite end point of survival without grade III-IV acute GVHD [aGVHD], systemic therapy-requiring chronic GVHD [cGVHD], or relapse) and cGVHD-free relapse-free survival (CRFS) among pediatric patients with acute leukemia (n = 1613) who underwent transplantation with 1 antigen-mismatched (7/8) bone marrow (BM; n = 172) or umbilical cord blood (UCB; n = 1441). Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards models. To account for multiple testing, P < .01 for the donor/graft variable was considered statistically significant. Clinical characteristics were similar between UCB and 7/8 BM recipients, because most had acute lymphoblastic leukemia (62%), 64% received total body irradiation-based conditioning, and 60% received anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. Methotrexate-based GVHD prophylaxis was more common with 7/8 BM (79%) than with UCB (15%), in which mycophenolate mofetil was commonly used. The univariate estimates of GRFS and CRFS were 22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16-29) and 27% (95% CI, 20-34), respectively, with 7/8 BM and 33% (95% CI, 31-36) and 38% (95% CI, 35-40), respectively, with UCB (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, 7/8 BM vs UCB had similar GRFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87-1.45; P = .39), CRFS (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.38; P = .66), overall survival (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.80-1.44; P = .66), and relapse (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.03-2.02; P = .03). However, the 7/8 BM group had a significantly higher risk for grade III-IV aGVHD (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.16-2.48; P = .006) compared with the UCB group. UCB and 7/8 BM groups had similar outcomes, as measured by GRFS and CRFS. However, given the higher risk for grade III-IV aGVHD, UCB might be preferred for patients lacking matched donors.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
