| 1. |
- Engert, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
The European Hematology Association Roadmap for European Hematology Research : a consensus document
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Haematologica. - Pavia, Italy : Ferrata Storti Foundation (Haematologica). - 0390-6078 .- 1592-8721. ; 101:2, s. 115-208
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Hematology Association (EHA) Roadmap for European Hematology Research highlights major achievements in diagnosis and treatment of blood disorders and identifies the greatest unmet clinical and scientific needs in those areas to enable better funded, more focused European hematology research. Initiated by the EHA, around 300 experts contributed to the consensus document, which will help European policy makers, research funders, research organizations, researchers, and patient groups make better informed decisions on hematology research. It also aims to raise public awareness of the burden of blood disorders on European society, which purely in economic terms is estimated at (sic)23 billion per year, a level of cost that is not matched in current European hematology research funding. In recent decades, hematology research has improved our fundamental understanding of the biology of blood disorders, and has improved diagnostics and treatments, sometimes in revolutionary ways. This progress highlights the potential of focused basic research programs such as this EHA Roadmap. The EHA Roadmap identifies nine 'sections' in hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid and myeloid diseases, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These sections span 60 smaller groups of diseases or disorders. The EHA Roadmap identifies priorities and needs across the field of hematology, including those to develop targeted therapies based on genomic profiling and chemical biology, to eradicate minimal residual malignant disease, and to develop cellular immunotherapies, combination treatments, gene therapies, hematopoietic stem cell treatments, and treatments that are better tolerated by elderly patients.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gisselbrecht, Christian, et al.
(författare)
-
Rituximab Maintenance Therapy After Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation in Patients With Relapsed CD20(+) Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma : Final Analysis of the Collaborative Trial in Relapsed Aggressive Lymphoma
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 30:36, s. 4462-4469
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose The standard treatment for relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). The impact of maintenance rituximab after ASCT is not known. Patients and Methods In total, 477 patients with CD20(+) DLBCL who were in their first relapse or refractory to initial therapy were randomly assigned to one of two salvage regimens. After three cycles of salvage chemotherapy, the responding patients received high-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT. Then, 242 patients were randomly assigned to either rituximab every 2 months for 1 year or observation. Results After ASCT, 122 patients received rituximab, and 120 patients were observed only. The median follow-up time was 44 months. The 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rates after ASCT were 52% and 53% for the rituximab and observation groups, respectively (P=.7). Treatment with rituximab was associated with a 15% attributable risk of serious adverse events after day 100, with more deaths (six deaths v three deaths in the observation arm). Several factors affected EFS after ASCT (P<.05), including relapsed disease within 12 months (EFS: 46% v 56% for relapsed disease after 12 months), secondary age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (saaIPI) more than 1 (EFS: 37% v 61% for saaIPI < 1), and prior treatment with rituximab (EFS: 47% v 59% for no prior rituximab). A significant difference in EFS between women (63%) and men (46%) was also observed in the rituximab group. In the Cox model for maintenance, the saaIPI was a significant prognostic factor (P<.001), as was male sex (P=.01). Conclusion In relapsed DLBCL, we observed no difference between the control group and the rituximab maintenance group and do not recommend rituximab after ASCT.
|
|
