Refine Search

New Search

Results in Journal Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia: 6,839

(searched for: journal_id:(565251))
Page of 137
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Published: 19 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.012

Abstract:
Chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) remains a standard-of-care in many regions for first line (1L) therapy of CLL. In fit patients, fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) has the advantage of achieving undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD) with time-limited treatment and prolonged treatment-free remissions with a plateau on the PFS curve, but has several limitations, most notably the inferior PFS and survival outcomes for patients with unmutated IGHV compared to ibrutinib + rituximab seen in the E1912 study and a risk for long-term toxicities such as therapy-related myeloid neoplasms. Given the non-overlapping toxicity profile with CIT and its efficacy in patients with high risk genomics, ibrutinib is a potentially useful agent to combine with CIT, with the aim of achieving deep and durable remissions, with time-limited treatment. Three recent phase 2 studies have combined ibrutinib with chemoimmunotherapy, utilizing different approaches in terms of patient selection, sequencing and duration of therapy and choice of monoclonal antibody. These studies all demonstrated favorable toxicity profiles and higher rates of undetectable MRD than with any other previously utilized 1L regimen. This review will focus on this novel treatment approach in CLL.
Published: 18 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.011

Abstract:
Despite a greater understanding of pathologic factors that increase the chance for treatment failure, initial therapy of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has not evolved from R/CHOP. Although it was anticipated that the genetic underpinnings of the cell or origin would dramatically change treatment, thus far, this has not been realized. Similarly, contrary to the situation with Hodgkin lymphoma, meaningful early treatment response assessment with PET CT has yet to be established in DLBCL. Nevertheless, there is tremendous enthusiasm that circulating tumor DNA, possibly in combination with PET CT may facilitate earlier recognition of treatment failure or relapse. And, in contrast to the situation with front-line treatment, therapy for recurrent disease appears to be on the cusp of dramatically improving. Thus, in addition to high dose therapy with autologous transplant, a treatment that is not feasible for many older patients, CAR-T cells, bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), antibody-drug conjugates and new monoclonal antibodies are all offering the possibility of long-term disease control and possible cure. The success of the cell and immunotherapies even offer hope for a chemotherapy-free strategy, initially for recurrent disease. Herein, we review the landscape of the novel agents in resistant DLBCL and speculate about their appropriate sequencing and possible migration to earlier use.
Elli D. Novatcheva, Yasmine Anouty, , James K. Mangan,
Published: 16 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.002

Abstract:
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia of adults, with a five-year survival that remains poor (approximately 25%). Knowledge and understanding of AML genomics have expanded tremendously over the past decade and are now included in AML prognostication and treatment decisions. FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) is a Class III receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) expressed primarily in the cell membranes of early hematopoietic progenitor cells, found in 28% of all patients with AML. FLT3 is the second most frequent mutation in adult AML following Nuclear-cytoplasmic shuttling phosphoprotein (NPM1), which is found in 50% of cases.1 FLT3 inhibitors are promising new molecular therapeutics increasingly becoming standard of care for both newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory FLT3 positive AML. This review will focus on the clinical trials/evidence, similarities, differences, clinical toxicities, and drug interactions relevant to treating clinicians as pertains to five FLT3-inhibitors: midostaurin, sorafenib, gilteritinib, crenolanib, and quizartinib.
, Mehmet Hilmi Dogu, Serhat Celik, Omer Ekinci, Ipek Yonal Hindilerden, Mehmet Sinan Dal, Eren Arslan Davulcu, Atakan Tekinalp, Fehmi Hindilerden, Busra Gokce Ozcan, et al.
Published: 14 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.010

Abstract:
MicroAbstract : We evaluated the safety and efficacy of single-agent ibrutinib in 200 patients presenting with relapsed/refractory CLL in real-world settings. With an estimated median OS of 52 months, 146 patients (75%) achieved at least PR; 16 (8.7%) patients discontinued ibrutinib due to adverse events. The results indicate good safety and efficacy for single-agent ibrutinib in R/R CLL in daily practice. Abstract The emergence of novel agents targeting the B-cell receptor pathway and BCL-2 has significantly changed the therapeutic landscape of CLL. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of single-agent ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory CLL in real-world settings. A total of 200 patients with a median age of 68 were included in the study. The median for lines of previous chemotherapy was 2 (1–6); 62 (31.8%) patients had del17p and/or p53 mutations (del17p+/p53mut). Of the study group, 146 (75%) patients achieved at least PR, while 16 (8.7%) patients discontinued ibrutinib due to TEA. The most common drug-related adverse events were neutropenia (n: 31; 17.4%) and thrombocytopenia (n: 40; 22.3%), which were ≥ grade 3 in 9 (5%) and 5 (3.9%) patients, respectively. Pneumonia (n: 42; 23.7%) was the most common non-hematologic TEA. Atrial fibrillation (n: 5; 2.8%) and bleeding (n: 11; 6.3%) were relatively rare during the study period. Within a median follow-up period of 17 (1–74) months, 42 (21%) patients died. The estimated median OS of the study cohort was 52 months. Only the response to ibrutinib (CR/PR vs SD/PD) was significantly associated with OS. Our results indicate good safety and efficacy for single-agent ibrutinib in R/R CLL in daily practice.
, Habte A. Yimer, Michael A. Boxer, John M. Burke, Sunil Babu, Jia Li, Yong Mun, Peter C. Trask, Anthony S. Masaquel, Jeff P. Sharman
Published: 11 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.008

Abstract:
Purpose : We evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) receiving first-line chemoimmunotherapy in the GIBB single-arm, Phase II study of obinutuzumab plus bendamustine (BG). Materials and Methods : Patients received six 28-day cycles of BG and were followed for up to 27 months. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC QLQ Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia 16 (QLQ-CLL16) questionnaires. Scores were linear-transformed to a 100-point scale, with clinically meaningful responses defined as a ≥ 10-point change from baseline. Results : The patient-reported outcome (PRO) population comprised 98 patients (68.4% male; median age 61 years). EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status improvements were noted at all follow-up visits and were clinically meaningful 2 to 3 months after induction and at 3- and 27-months' follow-up. Clinically meaningful improvements were also observed for the EORTC QLQ-C30 role functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue and insomnia scales and the EORTC QLQ-CLL16 fatigue, disease symptoms and future health worries scales. Global health status was maintained throughout follow-up, and no clinically relevant deterioration in other HRQoL parameters was observed. Conclusion : PRO data from the GIBB study show improved overall HRQoL in patients with CLL who received first-line chemoimmunotherapy with BG.
, Nicolas Boissel, Claudia Haferlach, Michael Loschi, Sophie Raynaud,
Published: 11 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.007

Abstract:
Background CBF AML with recurrent genetic abnormalities inv(16)(p13.1q22) or t(16;16)(p13.1;q22)/ CBFB-MYH11 are usually prognostically favorable but heterogeneous group and additional abnormalities change their prognosis. Materials and methods To evaluate the impact of a complex karyotype on CBF AML prognosis, we included 24 patients with a median age of 56.4 years ([23.2-83.3]) and a median number of abnormalities of 5 ([4-13]). Results Median follow-up was 110.4 months. Among patients with a primary clone, CR was reached in 66.7% of patients. 31.3% of patients experienced AML relapse with a median of 8.5 months. Median OS for transplanted patients was 80.7 vs 40.5 months for non-transplanted patients, excluding the four patients with early death. Among patients harboring AML with clonal evolution, CR was reached in 62.5% of patients. 50% of patients underwent ASCT. In these, median RFS was 19.3 vs 0 months in non-transplanted patients. Median OS seemed also longer in transplanted patients with 23.5 vs 2.95 months in non-transplanted. Conclusion Use of new treatment and tailored strategy based on MRD monitoring may now improve these results. However, these data allow us to reconsider the good prognosis historically associated with CBF patients despite of karyotype and the place of ASCT in the strategy.
Published: 11 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.009

Abstract:
Background Until recently, patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) could receive hypomethylating agents (HMAs) via intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) administration. An oral HMA was recently approved as an alternative to IV/SC administration. This study assessed the impact of IV/SC HMA on MDS patients, and their experience of, challenges with, and views about oral MDS treatment. Patients and methods We conducted an online cross-sectional survey among adult MDS patients (or caregivers as proxies) invited by 2 U.S. MDS patient advocacy groups. Patients were required to have received IV/SC HMA (i.e., azacitidine or decitabine) within 6 months of the survey. Results The survey was completed by 141 participants (120 patients, 21 caregiver proxies). Median patient age was 63.0 years, 53.9% were female, and 19.8%, 62.4%, and 17.7% had lower-, higher-, or unknown risk scores, respectively. HMA treatment received included SC azacitidine (37%), IV azacitidine (36%), and IV decitabine (27%). Among 89 IV HMA recipients, 74.2% and 69.7% reported treatment-related interference with their social and daily activities, respectively, and 66.3% reported pain related to treatment administration. Following an injection, SC HMA recipients reported pain (94.2%) and interference with daily (86.5%) and social (80.8%) activities. Among the 49.6% of patients who were working, 61.4% felt less productive due to treatment. Most (69.5%) MDS patients indicated they would prefer oral MDS treatment to IV/SC therapies. Conclusion Patients receiving IV/SC HMAs experienced pain/discomfort and interference with social and daily activities. The introduction of an oral HMA may alleviate some treatment challenges for MDS patients. Micro-Abstract This cross-sectional online survey assessed treatment challenges among myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients (including caregivers as proxies) who recently received treatment with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) via infusion/injection. Patients experienced pain/discomfort, interference with daily and social activities, and productivity loss. Respondents indicated a preference for oral MDS treatment. The introduction of oral HMA therapy may alleviate some treatment challenges for MDS patients.
Asif Husain Osmani, Yasser Khafaga, M Shahzad Rauf, Irfan Maghfoor,
Published: 10 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.003

Abstract:
Introduction After high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT), in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), involved field radiation therapy (RT) for consolidation and residual/progressive disease (PD) eradication is a common practice. Materials and methods Retrospective single-institution cohort analysis to evaluate the impact of early RT after HDC auto-SCT. Results Between 1996 to October 2019, 153 patients (43 DLBCL, 110 HL) underwent RT after HDC auto-SCT. Males 95 (62%), females 58 (38%), median age 24 years. Indications for RT was consolidation 65%: residual disease eradication 16%: and PD eradication 19%. For DLBCL, the median overall survival (OS) for the above indications was not reached (NR):NR:2 months and the KM 5-year OS was 72.6%:64.3%:12.5% respectively (P= <0.000). Pair-wise analysis showed that consolidation vs residual disease eradication had no difference (P=0.88) but both were superior to PD disease eradication (P=<000 and P=0.005 respectively). For HL, indication for RT was, 54%:23%:24% respectively. The median OS was NR:NR:28.8 months and KM 5-year OS was 82.3%:78%:30% respectively (P= <0.000). Pair-wise analysis showed that consolidation vs residual disease eradication had no difference (P=0.98) but both were superior to the PD eradication group (P=<000). RT was well tolerated with no significant long term toxicity Conclusions Post HDC auto-SCT RT was well tolerated. DLBCL and HL patients with residual disease treated with the RT had similar long-term survival as those who received RT for consolidation. RT failed to improve the poor survival in patients with post-HDC auto-SCT PD. MicroAbstract In this retrospective analysis of lymphomas patients (43 DLBCL, 110 HL), we evaluated the impact of post HDC auto-SCT IFRT, Patients with residual disease treated with the IFRT had similar survival as those who received IFRT for consolidation, IFRT failed to improve the poor survival in patients with progressive disease, No long term IFRT complication noted
Andrea Emanuele Guerini, , Alessandra Tucci, , Alessandro Re, Annamaria Guaineri, Vittorio Morelli, Paolo Borghetti, Luca Triggiani, Ludovica Pegurri, et al.
Published: 10 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.005

Abstract:
Background immunotherapy (IT), including checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) revolutionized the treatment of relapsing or refractory (r/r) lymphoma. Several preliminary experiences evaluated concomitant administration of radiotherapy and IT. Methods we performed a systematic review of current literature as of March 30, 2020. A total of 1090 records was retrieved, 42 articles were selected on the basis of title and abstract and, after the removal of analyses with no original data or insufficient clinical information, 28 papers were included in the review. Results previous studies were mostly represented by case reports/series or small cohorts. Nonetheless, combination of radiotherapy and CIs or CAR-T led to promising outcomes, resulting in extremely high rates of complete response and improving progression free and overall survival compared with data from recent clinical trials. Combination of RT and CIs had a fair toxicity profile with no reports of severe side effects. Within the limits of the small cohorts retrieved, RT seems a superior option compared with systemic treatment as a ‘bridge' to CAR-T and could as well reduce severe complications rates. Radiotherapy could elicit immune response against lymphoma, as demonstrated by multiple cases of abscopal effect and its inclusion in anti-neoplastic vaccines protocols. Conclusion The results of this review warrant the evaluation of combination of RT and immunotherapy in larger and preferably prospective and randomized cohorts to confirm these preliminary impressive outcomes. The optimal dose, fractionation and timing of RT still have to be clarified.
, Julia Hieulle, Erin Moshier, Shambavi Richard, , Hearn Jay Cho, Samir Parekh, Bart Barlogie, Ajai Chari, Sundar Jagannath, et al.
Published: 10 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.004

Taral Jella, Thomas B. Cwalina,
Published: 10 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.09.006

Abstract:
Background In 2020, the United States had approximately 85,000 new diagnoses of Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Food insecurity is both a direct and indirect detriment to health outcomes. The rate and risk factors for food insecurity among lymphoma patients are unknown, as the unemployment rate soars far above pre-COVID19 pandemic levels further heightening the economic stresses of a lymphoma diagnosis. Methods Data regarding the food security status were obtained from the cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A raw score compiled from a series of 10 food security questions was used to determine the Food Secure and Food Insecure groups. Respondents who reported a history of lymphoma from 2011 to 2019 were included in the analysis. Results Of the 921 patients reporting a history of lymphoma 9.06% were considered Food Insecure. The sociodemographic subgroups with the highest risk of being Food Insecure included respondents living below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level, non-US citizens, the uninsured, and those on Medicare. Conclusion Food insecurity is common among lymphoma patients. Therefore, oncologists across the country should be aware of the sociodemographic risk factors for food insecurity in order to assist in mediation, maximizing the efficacy of treatments. Research regarding the impact of food insecurity on therapy compliance and patient outcomes is warranted in future studies.
Gal Sharvit, Gabriel Heering, Maya Zlotnik, Drorit Merkel, Arnon Nagler, Abraham Avigdor, Avichai Shimoni,
Published: 8 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.08.014

Abstract:
Background Achievement of initial remission remains the most important clinical factor predicting long term survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients treated with intensive chemotherapy. Yet, whether the patient subset in need of a second cycle of intensive induction chemotherapy to reach remission experiences inferior outcomes compared to patients reaching remission after a single cycle of therapy, remains uncertain. Patients and Methods Retrospective analysis of 302 consecutive AML patients treated with intensive induction chemotherapy in our institution in 2007-2020. Results Median patient age was 55 years with a median follow-up duration of 23 months. In terms of European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2017 classification, 122 patients (40%) were designated as favorable risk disease, 108 patients (36%) were intermediate risk, and 71 patients (24%) were adverse risk. A hundred and seventy-seven patients (60%) attained remission following initial chemotherapy while 58 patients (20%) required an additional cycle of intensive chemotherapy for remission. Patients requiring two cycles to reach remission were less likely to be NPM1 mutated (33% versus 51%; p=0.025) or be in the ELN 2017 favorable risk category (25% versus 57%; p<0.001). In multivariate analysis achievement of remission following 2 cycles of intensive compared with a single cycle resulted in significantly inferior survival [hazard ratio (HR)=1.67, 95% CI, 1.07-2.59; p=0.025] whereas leukemia-free survival was not significantly impacted (HR=1.26, 95% CI, 0.85-1.85) (p=0.23). Relapse rates also did not differ to a significant degree between groups (45% versus 47%, p=0.8). Conclusion Attainment of an early remission significantly impacts long term survival in AML patients. Micro-Abstract First remission is a pivotal predictor of long-term outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. It remains a matter of debate whether long-term survival is impacted by the number of induction cycles required for remission. Our data indicate achievement of remission following 2 cycles of intensive compared with a single cycle resulted in significantly inferior survival with comparable leukemia-free survival.
Published: 3 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2021.08.015

Abstract:
The treatment landscape for AML has expanded significantly in the past 5 years with the approval of several therapeutic small molecules. While agents such as FLT3 inhibitors and IDH inhibitors are restricted for patients with specific mutations, the selective BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax combined with a hypomethylating agent (HMA) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) was approved after demonstrating frontline efficacy across a molecularly heterogenous group of patients. Currently, venetoclax is being investigated in combination with multiple other therapies as the role of the intrinsic apoptotic pathway in AML continues to be explored.
Adi Shacham-Abulafia, Galya Spectre, Karyn Revital Geiger, Ester Ziv, Zinab Sarsor, Neria Ron, Einat Beery, Pia Raanani, Orit Uziel, Uri Rozovski
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01818-8

Deepti Radia, Daniel DeAngelo, Michael W. Deininger, Andreas Reiter, Jayita Sen, Hui Min Lin, Sasa Dimitrijevic, Jason Gotlib
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01469-5

Lodovico Terzi di Bergamo, Gabriela Forestieri, Jui Wan Loh, Amartya Singh, Valeria Spina, Antonella Zucchetto, Adalgisa Condoluci, Martin Faderl, Ricardo Koch, Alessio Bruscaggin, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01394-x

Paula Rodríguez-Otero, María-Victoria Mateos, Albert Oriol, Alessandra Larocca, Joan Bladé, Michele Cavo, Xavier Leleu, Omar Nadeem, John W Hiemenz, Hani Hassoun, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01575-5

Viola Maria Popov, Lelia Iliescu, Catalina Pirvu, Andra Grigorie, Oana Constantin, Ana Rus, Dana Mihaela Niculae Badoiu, Adriana Badea, Meilin Omer, Mihaela Andreescu
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01330-6

John C. Byrd, Peter Hillmen, Paolo Ghia, Arnon P. Kater, Asher Chanan-Khan, Richard R. Furman, Susan O’Brien, Mustafa Nuri Yenerel, Arpad Illes, Neil Kay, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01750-x

Jonathon B. Cohen, Nirav N. Shah, Alvaro J. Alencar, James N. Gerson, Manish R. Patel, Bita Fahkri, Wojciech Jurczak, Xuan N. Tan, Katharine L. Lewis, Timothy S. Fenske, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01863-2

Jeff P. Sharman, Miklos Egyed, Wojciech Jurczak, Alan Skarbnik, John M. Pagel, Ian W. Flinn, Manali Kamdar, Talha Munir, Renata Walewska, Gillian Corbett, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01751-1

Michael W. Boyer, Sonali Chaudhury, Kara L. Davis, Timothy Alan Driscoll, Stephan A. Grupp, Michelle Hermiston, Samuel John, Amy K. Keating, Christina Kovacs, G. Doug Myers, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01641-4

Samantha El Warrak, Michael Anthony Timonian, Razan Mohty, Fatima Ismail, Ammar Zahreddine, Nabila Kreidieh, Iman Abou Dalle, Ali Bazarbachi, Jean El Cheikh
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01593-7

Sujan Piya, Marla Weetall, Josephine Sheedy, Balmiki Ray, Huaxian Ma, Kensuke Kojima, Vivian Ruvolo, Mahesh Basyal, Marina Konopleva, Michael Andreeff, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01714-6

Buruiana Sanda, Maria Robu, Victor Tomacinschi, Aliona Golub, Cristina Catan, Aliona Monu
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01528-7

Uri Rozovski, Lian Lipshtein, Zinab Sarsor, Einat Beery, Shaked Bogen, Meir Lahav, Kliminski Vitali, Roded Sharan, Asia Gurevits, Shai Shimoni, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01757-2

Saurabh Zanwar, Matthew Ho, Prashant Kapoor, Morie Gertz, Martha Lacy, Angela Dispenzieri, Suzanne Hayman, David Dingli, Francis Buadi, Nelson Leung, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01580-9

Ádám Jóna, Anna Kenyeres, Sándor Barna, Árpád Illés, Zsófia Simon
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01907-8

Rohit Reddy Lavu, Lalit Kumar, Raja Mounika Velagapudi, Sreenivas Konda, Shalabh Arora
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01965-0

Sangeetha Venugopal, Courtney D. DiNardo, Koichi Takahashi, Marina Konopleva, Sanam Loghavi, Gautam Borthakur, Amy DeZern, Lucia Masarova, Naval Daver, Nicholas J. Short, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01427-0

John Mascarenhas, Claire Harrison, Katarina Luptakova, Jing Wang, Gozde Colak, James Shao, Suresh Bobba, Patrick Trojer, Jeffrey Humphrey, Srdan Verstovsek
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01479-8

Paul Hampel, Timothy Call, Kari Rabe, Sara Achenbach, Eli Muchtar, Saad Kenderian, Yucai Wang, Amber Koehler, Jose Leis, Susan Schwager, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01403-8

Andrew H. Wei
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01228-3

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian, Uwe Platzbecker, Jiří Mayer, Árpád Illés, Witold Prejzner, Tomasz Woźny, Nikolay Tzvetkov, Alessandro M Vannucchi, Ilya Kirgner, Zsolt Nagy, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01453-1

Arberore Nallbani, Aferdita Ukimeraj, Shemsedin Sadiku, Edlira Gashi
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01968-6

Masayuki Umeda, Jing Ma, Kohei Hagiwara, Tamara Westover, Michael P Walsh, Guangchun Song, Yanling Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Pandurang Kolekar, Quang Tran, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01322-7

Sanja Trajkova, Lidija Cevreska, Aleksandra Pivkova-Veljanovska, Marija Popova-Labacevska, Nevenka Ridova, Simona Stojanovska, Irina Panovska-Stavridis
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01743-2

Brad S. Kahl, Mehdi Hamadani, Paolo F. Caimi, Carmelo Carlo-Stella, Weiyun Ai, Juan Pablo Alderuccio, Kirit M. Ardeshna, Brian Hess, John Radford, Melhem Solh, et al.
Published: 1 September 2021
Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 21; https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(21)01861-9

Page of 137
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Back to Top Top