@article{StoelzelMohrKrameretal.2016, author = {St{\"o}lzel, F. and Mohr, B. and Kramer, M. and Oelschl{\"a}gel, U. and Bochtler, T. and Berdel, W. E. and Kaufmann, M. and Baldus, C. D. and Sch{\"a}fer-Eckart, K. and Stuhlmann, R. and Einsele, H. and Krause, S. W. and Serve, H. and H{\"a}nel, M. and Herbst, R. and Neubauer, A. and Sohlbach, K. and Mayer, J. and Middeke, J. M. and Platzbecker, U. and Schaich, M. and Kr{\"a}mer, A. and R{\"o}llig, C. and Schetelig, J. and Bornh{\"a}user, M. and Ehninger, G.}, title = {Karyotype complexity and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia}, series = {Blood Cancer Journal}, volume = {6}, journal = {Blood Cancer Journal}, doi = {10.1038/bcj.2015.114}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-164530}, pages = {e386}, year = {2016}, abstract = {A complex aberrant karyotype consisting of multiple unrelated cytogenetic abnormalities is associated with poor prognosis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The European Leukemia Net classification and the UK Medical Research Council recommendation provide prognostic categories that differ in the definition of unbalanced aberrations as well as the number of single aberrations. The aim of this study on 3526 AML patients was to redefine and validate a cutoff for karyotype complexity in AML with regard to adverse prognosis. Our study demonstrated that (1) patients with a pure hyperdiploid karyotype have an adverse risk irrespective of the number of chromosomal gains, (2) patients with translocation t(9;11)(p21∼22;q23) have an intermediate risk independent of the number of additional aberrations, (3) patients with 4 abnormalities have an adverse risk per se and (4) patients with three aberrations in the absence of abnormalities of strong influence (hyperdiploid karyotype, t(9;11)(p21∼22;q23), CBF-AML, unique adverse-risk aberrations) have borderline intermediate/adverse risk with a reduced overall survival compared with patients with a normal karyotype.}, language = {en} } @article{WeisschuhMayerStrometal.2016, author = {Weisschuh, Nicole and Mayer, Anja K. and Strom, Tim M. and Kohl, Susanne and Gl{\"o}ckle, Nicola and Schubach, Max and Andreasson, Sten and Bernd, Antje and Birch, David G. and Hamel, Christian P. and Heckenlively, John R. and Jacobson, Samuel G. and Kamme, Christina and Kellner, Ulrich and Kunstmann, Erdmute and Maffei, Pietro and Reiff, Charlotte M. and Rohrschneider, Klaus and Rosenberg, Thomas and Rudolph, G{\"u}nther and V{\´a}mos, Rita and Vars{\´a}nyi, Bal{\´a}zs and Weleber, Richard G. and Wissinger, Bernd}, title = {Mutation Detection in Patients with Retinal Dystrophies Using Targeted Next Generation Sequencing}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {11}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0145951}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-167398}, pages = {e0145951}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Retinal dystrophies (RD) constitute a group of blinding diseases that are characterized by clinical variability and pronounced genetic heterogeneity. The different nonsyndromic and syndromic forms of RD can be attributed to mutations in more than 200 genes. Consequently, next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are among the most promising approaches to identify mutations in RD. We screened a large cohort of patients comprising 89 independent cases and families with various subforms of RD applying different NGS platforms. While mutation screening in 50 cases was performed using a RD gene capture panel, 47 cases were analyzed using whole exome sequencing. One family was analyzed using whole genome sequencing. A detection rate of 61\% was achieved including mutations in 34 known and two novel RD genes. A total of 69 distinct mutations were identified, including 39 novel mutations. Notably, genetic findings in several families were not consistent with the initial clinical diagnosis. Clinical reassessment resulted in refinement of the clinical diagnosis in some of these families and confirmed the broad clinical spectrum associated with mutations in RD genes.}, language = {en} } @article{RiegerLissMellinghoffetal.2018, author = {Rieger, C. T. and Liss, B. and Mellinghoff, S. and Buchheidt, D. and Cornely, O. A. and Egerer, G. and Heinz, W. J. and Hentrich, M. and Maschmeyer, G. and Mayer, K. and Sandherr, M. and Silling, G. and Ullmann, A. and Vehreschild, M. J. G. T. and von Lilienfeld-Toal, M. and Wolf, H. H. and Lehners, N.}, title = {Anti-infective vaccination strategies in patients with hematologic malignancies or solid tumors-Guideline of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)}, series = {Annals of Oncology}, volume = {29}, journal = {Annals of Oncology}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1093/annonc/mdy117}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-226196}, pages = {1354-1365}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Infectious complications are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancies specifically when receiving anticancer treatments. Prevention of infection through vaccines is an important aspect of clinical care of cancer patients. Immunocompromising effects of the underlying disease as well as of antineoplastic therapies need to be considered when devising vaccination strategies. This guideline provides clinical recommendations on vaccine use in cancer patients including autologous stem cell transplant recipients, while allogeneic stem cell transplantation is subject of a separate guideline. The document was prepared by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) by reviewing currently available data and applying evidence-based medicine criteria.}, language = {en} } @article{GratwohlPfirrmannZanderetal.2016, author = {Gratwohl, A and Pfirrmann, M and Zander, A and Kr{\"o}ger, N and Beelen, D and Novotny, J and Nerl, C and Scheid, C and Spiekermann, K and Mayer, J and Sayer, HG and Falge, C and Bunjes, D and D{\"o}hner, H and Ganser, A and Schmidt-Wolf, I and Schwerdtfeger, R and Baurmann, H and Kuse, R and Schmitz, N and Wehmeier, A and Fischer, J Th and Ho, AD and Wilhelm, M and Goebeler, M-E and Lindemann, HW and Bormann, M and Hertenstein, B and Schlimok, G and Baerlocher, GM and Aul, C and Pfreundschuh, M and Fabian, M and Staib, P and Edinger, M and Schatz, M and Fauser, A and Arnold, R and Kindler, T and Wulf, G and Rosselet, A and Hellmann, A and Sch{\"a}fer, E and Pr{\"u}mmer, O and Schenk, M and Hasford, J and Heimpel, H and Hossfeld, DK and Kolb, H-J and B{\"u}sche, G and Haferlach, C and Schnittger, S and M{\"u}ller, MC and Reiter, A and Berger, U and Saußele, S and Hochhaus, A and Hehlmann, R}, title = {Long-term outcome of patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: a randomized comparison of stem cell transplantation with drug treatment}, series = {Leukemia}, volume = {30}, journal = {Leukemia}, doi = {10.1038/leu.2015.281}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-150368}, pages = {562-569}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Tyrosine kinase inhibitors represent today's treatment of choice in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is regarded as salvage therapy. This prospective randomized CML-study IIIA recruited 669 patients with newly diagnosed CML between July 1997 and January 2004 from 143 centers. Of these, 427 patients were considered eligible for HSCT and were randomized by availability of a matched family donor between primary HSCT (group A; N=166 patients) and best available drug treatment (group B; N=261). Primary end point was long-term survival. Survival probabilities were not different between groups A and B (10-year survival: 0.76 (95\% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.82) vs 0.69 (95\% CI: 0.61-0.76)), but influenced by disease and transplant risk. Patients with a low transplant risk showed superior survival compared with patients with high- (P<0.001) and non-high-risk disease (P=0.047) in group B; after entering blast crisis, survival was not different with or without HSCT. Significantly more patients in group A were in molecular remission (56\% vs 39\%; P = 0.005) and free of drug treatment (56\% vs 6\%; P<0.001). Differences in symptoms and Karnofsky score were not significant. In the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, HSCT remains a valid option when both disease and transplant risk are considered.}, language = {en} }