Recommended screening and preventive practices for long-term survivors after hematopoietic cell transplantation

Advances in hematopoietic cell transplantation [HCT] technology and supportive care techniques have led to improvements in long-term survival after HCT. Emerging indications for transplantation, introduction of newer graft sources [eg, umbilical cord blood] and transplantation of older patients using less intense conditioning regimens have also contributed to an increase in the number of HCT survivors. These survivors are at risk for developing late complications secondary to pre-, peri-, and posttransplantation exposures and risk factors. Guidelines for screening and preventive practices for HCT survivors were published in 2006. An international group of transplantation experts was convened in 2011 to review contemporary literature and update the recommendations while considering the changing practice of transplantation and international applicability of these guidelines. This review provides the updated recommendations for screening and preventive practices for pediatric and adult survivors of autologous and allogeneic HCT

Treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease: Past, present and future

Chronic GVHD was recognized as a complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation more than 30 years ago, but progress has been slowed by the limited insight into the pathogenesis of the disease and the mechanisms that lead to development of immunological tolerance. Only 6 randomized phase III treatment studies have been reported. Results of retrospective studies and prospective phase II clinical trials suggested overall benefit from treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or thalidomide, but these results were not substantiated by phase III studies of initial systemic treatment for chronic GVHD. A comprehensive review of published reports showed numerous deficiencies in studies of secondary treatment for chronic GVHD. Fewer than 10% of reports documented an effort to minimize patient selection bias, used a consistent treatment regimen, or tested a formal statistical hypothesis that was based on a contemporaneous or historical benchmark. In order to enable valid comparison of the results from different studies, eligibility criteria, definitions of individual organ and overall response, and time of assessment should be standardized. Improved treatments are more likely to emerge if reviewers and journal editors hold authors to higher standards in evaluating manuscripts for publication.