Susie,
My main problem with your posting on this topic (not other's who are challenging UAM data) is that you are a well respected, frequent, intelligent poster to this forum who is influential to new multiple myeloma patients navigating treatment options. But when it comes to this topic, you are so emotionally attached to your viewpoint that you become non-objective and emotional with your attacks.
When you reread your posts, don't you think you crossed a line of factually discussing this issue?
"It could be argued that the continued use of such brutal and toxic therapy is sheer malevolence with the sole purpose to promote stem cell salvage as therapy in order to deliver the most toxic doses of chemotherapy to uninformed myeloma patients who believe those stem cells are transformative therapy, while making obscene profits"
Since most multiple myeloma specialists agree that SCT's are still a major aspect of myeloma treatment for otherwise, healthy patients, your post above suggests the entire industry, is engaging in a conspiracy to promote SCT's for the sole purpose of financial gain. If I were in charge of this conspiracy, I'd promote new therapies since they are so expensive and are not a one time event. Also, you continue to misuse the word "salvage therapy" because...it sounds worse? Can't we call it rescue therapy?
And then this...
"let the facts suffice as it appears we now have the mortality statistics to demonstrate the cruel hoax that MIRT has been allowed to perpetrate. Those who leave MIRT with their lives are damn lucky"
Really? You feel ok with that paragraph? You probably made over 1000 patients/loved ones cringe unnecessarily with that one.
"I suspect that you could be laboring under a false assumption as if I had used profane language when in essence the post was edited so as to omit the word maverick, and insert MIRT or UAMS vs. the name of the director. I did not slander nor defame anyone at anytime"
Since "maverick" and the name of the director are still in your post, I do assume the Beacon edited more than that.
As I've said before, your attacks could endanger this forum or website with legal issues, and we all would lose. I've witnessed another forum on a more minor disease fold due to legal threats. I am aware of several patients who no longer feel comfortable posting here due, in large part, to some of your inflammatory rhetoric.
I have never been to UAM or Huntsville and I have never spoken to anybody from those institutions. But I have chosen an aggressive therapy strategy because it's the only one that works. I'm not emotionally attached to my avenue of treatment so look forward to more honest discussion of UAM test results.
I suspect that some will view my reply to you as over the top. But since you dish it out so often, I think an honest, unbridled reply is ok.
Forums
Re: Report on Myeloma Trials at UAMS / Arkansas
Hi Arizonian,
I totally agree with your wonderful analogy...very perspicacious and dead on!!
Also, thank you for the kind words, I appreciated them.
I totally agree with your wonderful analogy...very perspicacious and dead on!!
Also, thank you for the kind words, I appreciated them.
-
suzierose - Name: suzierose
- When were you/they diagnosed?: 2 sept 2011
Re: Report on Myeloma Trials at UAMS / Arkansas
Dear Stan,
Thank you for your really positive informative feedback. I promise to revert to my old self. I too am human and flawed, must have my chain yanked at times..
Your highly regarded point is noted. Thanks.
I completely agree that I stated things in a very emotionally dramatic manner and I will re-iterate, I did so in anticipation of the emotionally ferocious feedback that typically ensues when the very controversial MIRT therapeutic regimen is discussed
You are right that this was not likely the most persusavive way to make the point, and I let persuasion take a back seat to the emotional vehemence that encompanies MIRT as the topic. That was an error in judgment on my part. I regret it.
I do endeavor to provide data that is helpful and not emotional in the majority of posts. Point of fact, I have been told that my posts can be perceived as emotionally impersonal in that regard. And it meant a lot that you noted how, other than MIRT, my posts are positively impactful. I appreciate that as it is my real aim vs a 'pissin' match' on one topic.
However, MIRT is a program that engenders such emotions vs. rational responses that I, deviated from my norm, did a pre-emptive strike. That was not wise. And I do apologize. My objective was to meet anticipated strong emotion with equal adamance. Poor decision. Yet, I have to admit it was hard to be as rational as I typically am having been on the receiving end of MIRT acolytes glorifying one person/therapeutic regimen as if it is the holy graile, previously.
While I regret how I colored things emotionally, I am more than confident that the facts are unassailable, despite being obfuscated by the dramatic emotional verbage...but then that is how discussions about MIRT typically evolve...all emotion..little fact. And truth be told, if emotions were going to rule the day, I did set out, atypically, to voice my emotions vs fact first.
While the facts bear me out, the emotions overwhelmed the data.
I will re-think how to discuss MIRT withOUT being emotionally pre-emptive.
The edits in my post were not extensive and contained nothing that was more inflammatory than the parts you have cited. Those excerpts were the most emotionally inflammatory and not edited. I suspect that was due to it being factual, despite being couched in emotionally dramatic verbage.
"Since most multiple myeloma specialists agree that SCT's are still a major aspect of myeloma treatment for otherwise, healthy patients, your post above suggests the entire industry, is engaging in a conspiracy to promote SCT's for the sole purpose of financial gain. If I were in charge of this conspiracy, I'd promote new therapies since they are so expensive and are not a one time event. Also, you continue to misuse the word "salvage therapy" because...it sounds worse? Can't we call it rescue therapy? "
Most myeloma specialists do not agree that SCT's are a major aspect of myeloma.
What they agree is that HDT neccessitates they manage the life threatening toxicity of those doses with a SCT so the doses are not fatal. Big difference. Of all cancer patients, when speaking of the industry, myeloma patients receive the majority of autologous stem cell transplants. Now place this in perspective of knowing that out of all cancers, myeloma comprises ONE percent of all cancers!! So, you do the math. Why is it that a cancer that represents only 1% of ALL cancers has the majority of SCT's? WHY? Is there a financial component?
I did not misuse the word salvage, which is a major issue, when it comes to patients understanding what they are opting for in terms of therapy. SCT is not therapy, it is what they do to salvage patients from the life-threatening toxicities that result from HDT. Read that multiple times until you grasp it. SCT's with your own cells are not therapeutic. It is the high doses of chemotherapy that are given PRECEEDING SCT and the toxicities of that HighDose life thretening chemotherapy which necessitate the SCT. A SCT is what they do to manage the adverse life threatening reaction from the those high doses.
Make no mistake it is the highly toxic doses of chemotherapy that are the therapy.
You will not survive subsequent to receiving them due to the toxicity unless you are given a SCT to rescue you, thus the word salvage. However, rescue is a word that works well too, as long as patients understand they are being rescued from the toxicity of the HDT they were given. Which makes rescue/salvage tandem SCT's (a MIRT standard) an even bigger issue, financially and toxicity wise. Are you seeing what my therapeutic point was?
"Really? You feel ok with that paragraph? You probably made over 1000 patients/loved ones cringe unnecessarily with that one"
Ok, I did make folks cringe...but the points were valid factually nevertheless. There are many times when I am compassionate, but I always err on the side of therapeutic efficacy vs patient allegiance to a particular regimen. IOW's the intent of my words was not to make past patients cringe but to highlight, how the therapy is not necessarily the most efficacious vs most highly toxic to NEW patients. I do not seek to demean past choices,(what's done is done) but rather to delineate for those who are presently making choices that there are options beyond MIRT that are clearly as effective and less toxic and physically grueling.
I made that point strongly because of how emotionally strong defensively MIRT patients are..I wanted to convey the facts as fiercely emotionally for new patients, in the process of decison making, as MIRT patients do. If emotions vs. facts were going to win the day..then NDMM need to hear strong emotions oppositionally (pro-actively) on the other side.
Let me assure you the facts I have stated clearly and emphatically do not endanger this forum because they ARE INDEED completely factually. Have you heard any medical expert counter those facts? The science is what it is.
I respect everyone's choices, I only hope, that they hear the multiplicity of choices and the pros&cons..whether they choose aggresive or not, they should be aware of the therapeutic options. I respect every patients choice. It is highly personal and between them and their faith/God. al
LOL, I do not feel you dished anything but a forceful opinion. I respect that. And I hope that you respect my having done the same factually, even if I clouded them with emotions. I did not just offer an emotional opinion, I also provided the clinically and scientifically validated evidence to support what I stated.
Unfortunately, I included emotions with it, which I normally don't.
It's all good Stann. Regardless of what others may think or view, I do not view your response as 'over the top' As you rightly understand, I can take what I 'dish'. I respect you addressing me forthrightly.
And I value being respected over being liked. I will endeavor to do what I have that has been positive.
Again, thanks for your feedback.
Respectully,
suzierose
Thank you for your really positive informative feedback. I promise to revert to my old self. I too am human and flawed, must have my chain yanked at times..
Your highly regarded point is noted. Thanks.I completely agree that I stated things in a very emotionally dramatic manner and I will re-iterate, I did so in anticipation of the emotionally ferocious feedback that typically ensues when the very controversial MIRT therapeutic regimen is discussed
You are right that this was not likely the most persusavive way to make the point, and I let persuasion take a back seat to the emotional vehemence that encompanies MIRT as the topic. That was an error in judgment on my part. I regret it.
I do endeavor to provide data that is helpful and not emotional in the majority of posts. Point of fact, I have been told that my posts can be perceived as emotionally impersonal in that regard. And it meant a lot that you noted how, other than MIRT, my posts are positively impactful. I appreciate that as it is my real aim vs a 'pissin' match' on one topic.
However, MIRT is a program that engenders such emotions vs. rational responses that I, deviated from my norm, did a pre-emptive strike. That was not wise. And I do apologize. My objective was to meet anticipated strong emotion with equal adamance. Poor decision. Yet, I have to admit it was hard to be as rational as I typically am having been on the receiving end of MIRT acolytes glorifying one person/therapeutic regimen as if it is the holy graile, previously.
While I regret how I colored things emotionally, I am more than confident that the facts are unassailable, despite being obfuscated by the dramatic emotional verbage...but then that is how discussions about MIRT typically evolve...all emotion..little fact. And truth be told, if emotions were going to rule the day, I did set out, atypically, to voice my emotions vs fact first.
While the facts bear me out, the emotions overwhelmed the data.
I will re-think how to discuss MIRT withOUT being emotionally pre-emptive.
The edits in my post were not extensive and contained nothing that was more inflammatory than the parts you have cited. Those excerpts were the most emotionally inflammatory and not edited. I suspect that was due to it being factual, despite being couched in emotionally dramatic verbage.
"Since most multiple myeloma specialists agree that SCT's are still a major aspect of myeloma treatment for otherwise, healthy patients, your post above suggests the entire industry, is engaging in a conspiracy to promote SCT's for the sole purpose of financial gain. If I were in charge of this conspiracy, I'd promote new therapies since they are so expensive and are not a one time event. Also, you continue to misuse the word "salvage therapy" because...it sounds worse? Can't we call it rescue therapy? "
Most myeloma specialists do not agree that SCT's are a major aspect of myeloma.
What they agree is that HDT neccessitates they manage the life threatening toxicity of those doses with a SCT so the doses are not fatal. Big difference. Of all cancer patients, when speaking of the industry, myeloma patients receive the majority of autologous stem cell transplants. Now place this in perspective of knowing that out of all cancers, myeloma comprises ONE percent of all cancers!! So, you do the math. Why is it that a cancer that represents only 1% of ALL cancers has the majority of SCT's? WHY? Is there a financial component?
I did not misuse the word salvage, which is a major issue, when it comes to patients understanding what they are opting for in terms of therapy. SCT is not therapy, it is what they do to salvage patients from the life-threatening toxicities that result from HDT. Read that multiple times until you grasp it. SCT's with your own cells are not therapeutic. It is the high doses of chemotherapy that are given PRECEEDING SCT and the toxicities of that HighDose life thretening chemotherapy which necessitate the SCT. A SCT is what they do to manage the adverse life threatening reaction from the those high doses.
Make no mistake it is the highly toxic doses of chemotherapy that are the therapy.
You will not survive subsequent to receiving them due to the toxicity unless you are given a SCT to rescue you, thus the word salvage. However, rescue is a word that works well too, as long as patients understand they are being rescued from the toxicity of the HDT they were given. Which makes rescue/salvage tandem SCT's (a MIRT standard) an even bigger issue, financially and toxicity wise. Are you seeing what my therapeutic point was?
"Really? You feel ok with that paragraph? You probably made over 1000 patients/loved ones cringe unnecessarily with that one"
Ok, I did make folks cringe...but the points were valid factually nevertheless. There are many times when I am compassionate, but I always err on the side of therapeutic efficacy vs patient allegiance to a particular regimen. IOW's the intent of my words was not to make past patients cringe but to highlight, how the therapy is not necessarily the most efficacious vs most highly toxic to NEW patients. I do not seek to demean past choices,(what's done is done) but rather to delineate for those who are presently making choices that there are options beyond MIRT that are clearly as effective and less toxic and physically grueling.
I made that point strongly because of how emotionally strong defensively MIRT patients are..I wanted to convey the facts as fiercely emotionally for new patients, in the process of decison making, as MIRT patients do. If emotions vs. facts were going to win the day..then NDMM need to hear strong emotions oppositionally (pro-actively) on the other side.
Let me assure you the facts I have stated clearly and emphatically do not endanger this forum because they ARE INDEED completely factually. Have you heard any medical expert counter those facts? The science is what it is.
I respect everyone's choices, I only hope, that they hear the multiplicity of choices and the pros&cons..whether they choose aggresive or not, they should be aware of the therapeutic options. I respect every patients choice. It is highly personal and between them and their faith/God. al
LOL, I do not feel you dished anything but a forceful opinion. I respect that. And I hope that you respect my having done the same factually, even if I clouded them with emotions. I did not just offer an emotional opinion, I also provided the clinically and scientifically validated evidence to support what I stated.
Unfortunately, I included emotions with it, which I normally don't.
It's all good Stann. Regardless of what others may think or view, I do not view your response as 'over the top' As you rightly understand, I can take what I 'dish'. I respect you addressing me forthrightly.
And I value being respected over being liked. I will endeavor to do what I have that has been positive.
Again, thanks for your feedback.
Respectully,
suzierose
-
suzierose - Name: suzierose
- When were you/they diagnosed?: 2 sept 2011
Re: Report on Myeloma Trials at UAMS / Arkansas
I just came across this discussion. I just returned from UAMS and a SCT and am about to go back for my first bridging. I was diagnosed with SM 2 1/2 years ago at the time I was diagnosed with locally advanced breast cancer. After chemo, surgery and radiation, my breast cancer was "gone" no evidence at all when surgery was done after chemo. The myeloma markers went to normal. But over the next 2 years they steadily increased. I was also told I was high risk. I had no bone lesions or kidney problems. My main symptoms were increasing anemia and tiredness. All the markers had increased to significant levels. Since I was considered high risk and had already had chemo (Adriamycin, Cytoxan and Taxol) that wiped out the markers and they had come back, it was time for SCT. I was put off protocol (previous cancer and chemo) on TT5 with what I was told was "low dose" and that I was lucky to get the low dose. The melphalan was just "80" as opposed to "200" I am not eligible for a second transplant since I'm on Medicare. I am just as glad I'm no eligible for the second transplant.
I am a very healthy 69 year old and so far have come thru all treatments and chemo's well. What I would like to know - what questions should I ask when I go back? I will have one more bridging and then maintenance. I'm not wild about long maintenance. I also really wonder what the point of increasing life by 9 months with major treatment. I can see 5 years, but a few months or even a year doesn't seem worth it.
I am a very healthy 69 year old and so far have come thru all treatments and chemo's well. What I would like to know - what questions should I ask when I go back? I will have one more bridging and then maintenance. I'm not wild about long maintenance. I also really wonder what the point of increasing life by 9 months with major treatment. I can see 5 years, but a few months or even a year doesn't seem worth it.
-
mrsmulberry
Re: Report on Myeloma Trials at UAMS / Arkansas
Stan, you make an excellent argument but sometimes it just "falls on deaf ears"! As the saying goes "You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink!" Sometimes is just better to let "dead dogs lie"or you ust have to know when it is time to stop "beating a dead horse"! Don't you just love analogy? Best Regards/Gary
-
Gary P
Re: Report on Myeloma Trials at UAMS / Arkansas
Gary, nice analogies. Except one. it's second nature to let dead dogs lie, but a wise man who let's a "sleeping" dog lie. Ha. Yes, I love analogies.
I wonder who was the first guy to say "don't beat a dead horse"? I hate to picture it.
I wonder who was the first guy to say "don't beat a dead horse"? I hate to picture it.
-
Stann
Re: Report on Myeloma Trials at UAMS / Arkansas
Suzie,
Thanks for your reply.
I think almost everybody knows stem cell transplant means high level chemo followed by rescue with your own cells. Right? But I agree it's worth pointing out from time to time.
But you are parrying my point with your reply. Most multiple myeloma specialists do believe high dose chemo, usually melphalan, followed by rescue, using one's own stem cells, is a centerpiece, or at least a very important tool in the fight against myeloma. Your paragraph accuses the industry of engaging in a conspiracy of promoting SCT's ( again, short for "high dose chemo, usually melphalan, followed by rescue using one own's stem cells--or commonly referred to as stem cell transplants) for profit. If I were part of this conspiracy, I'd promote the newer therapies which involve taking very costly drugs over very long periods of time, rather than SCT's which are a one or two time event.
And we all know anybody can make statistics say what we want. I don't want to blindly go down the path of doing whatever a doctor tells me, but since the majority of myleoma doctors/specialists, who have spent years and years studying and treating multiple myeloma patients, still use SCT's on most patients, I am very comfortable in my decision to have had an SCT. In fact I liked it so much I had two! (it was the only thing knocking my numbers down).
Take care and enjoy the first day of December! Stann
Thanks for your reply.
I think almost everybody knows stem cell transplant means high level chemo followed by rescue with your own cells. Right? But I agree it's worth pointing out from time to time.
But you are parrying my point with your reply. Most multiple myeloma specialists do believe high dose chemo, usually melphalan, followed by rescue, using one's own stem cells, is a centerpiece, or at least a very important tool in the fight against myeloma. Your paragraph accuses the industry of engaging in a conspiracy of promoting SCT's ( again, short for "high dose chemo, usually melphalan, followed by rescue using one own's stem cells--or commonly referred to as stem cell transplants) for profit. If I were part of this conspiracy, I'd promote the newer therapies which involve taking very costly drugs over very long periods of time, rather than SCT's which are a one or two time event.
And we all know anybody can make statistics say what we want. I don't want to blindly go down the path of doing whatever a doctor tells me, but since the majority of myleoma doctors/specialists, who have spent years and years studying and treating multiple myeloma patients, still use SCT's on most patients, I am very comfortable in my decision to have had an SCT. In fact I liked it so much I had two! (it was the only thing knocking my numbers down).
Take care and enjoy the first day of December! Stann
-
Stann
Re: Report on Myeloma Trials at UAMS / Arkansas
Stan, Stan, Stan, you just could not let the "sleeping dog lie"! I think you enjoy throwing raw meat into the lions cage, just to watch the carnage! That was my next step! You are just mentally a little quicker than I. Best Regards/Gary
-
Gary P
Re: Report on Myeloma Trials at UAMS / Arkansas
MrsMulberry, a few comments on your question about maintenance from the unsophisticated way I look at it. There is much discussion over the benefits of continuing maintenance therapy following the primary treatments. Someone (I forget who) told me one time that with all cancers (not just Myeloma) there is the possibility of microscopic remnants of cancer remaining even after remission. From this viewpoint, “remission” might mean such remnants are too small to measure. Soooooo, in my simple minded world, long range maintenance might be viewed as an attempt to continue beating on bad things that can't be measured.
I know, such a simple minded view is easy to find fault with and there are so many side issues to consider – quality of life, developing long range immunities to particular drugs, etc etc etc. But, there may also be the potential for a more positive long range prognosis – again, depending on which expert you listen to. It is my perception that post treatment maintenance is becoming more acceptable as time passes.
My inclination would be to put myself into the hands of the experts I had chosen, go initially with their recommendations or protocols, and then make follow-up decisions as needed after I see more clearly the direction things are going.
This brings us to your second question – is an additional 9 months worth it? This question really puts people into Outer Limits type decisions and is so personal. Answers to questions such as this are dependent upon each individual's situation and experience in treatment, are completely subjective, and probably can't be answered honestly until after it's all over. The answer would be different for each individual based on age, health in general, family situations, side effects of drugs, etc. etc etc. The truth is that we just don't know if it will be 9-months – what if it is 24 months – what if it is 60 months - what if we go out tomorrow and get hit by a car or the sky falls on our head or we develop Alzheimer's and stop worrying about it? This is a gut wrenching decision which may have no right or wrong answer.
Good luck, Chuck
I know, such a simple minded view is easy to find fault with and there are so many side issues to consider – quality of life, developing long range immunities to particular drugs, etc etc etc. But, there may also be the potential for a more positive long range prognosis – again, depending on which expert you listen to. It is my perception that post treatment maintenance is becoming more acceptable as time passes.
My inclination would be to put myself into the hands of the experts I had chosen, go initially with their recommendations or protocols, and then make follow-up decisions as needed after I see more clearly the direction things are going.
This brings us to your second question – is an additional 9 months worth it? This question really puts people into Outer Limits type decisions and is so personal. Answers to questions such as this are dependent upon each individual's situation and experience in treatment, are completely subjective, and probably can't be answered honestly until after it's all over. The answer would be different for each individual based on age, health in general, family situations, side effects of drugs, etc. etc etc. The truth is that we just don't know if it will be 9-months – what if it is 24 months – what if it is 60 months - what if we go out tomorrow and get hit by a car or the sky falls on our head or we develop Alzheimer's and stop worrying about it? This is a gut wrenching decision which may have no right or wrong answer.
Good luck, Chuck
Re: Report on Myeloma Trials at UAMS / Arkansas
Hi Dan D,
Great to hear that you are responding to your induction therapy. UAMS has charts of the low risk patients that attain CR and the results seem good. I would like to see how the patients do after they are off maintenance. It does not seem like much in the way of news to me that patients in CR that continue to take VRD maintenance stay in remission. The thing I find surprising is that only 43% of the patients on "total therapy 3" got a sCR in the first year (figure 1A of the attached link). By that time I would think the patient would have been through 2 induction cycles of VTD PACE, 2 autos and 2 consolidation phases of VTD PACE. I am guessing most of the patients would be into the maintenance phase with I believe would have been Velcade-Thal (not sure if Revlimid was used by the time this study was out) and DEX. That really underscores the urgent need we have for more effective drugs in myeloma. To give you an idea of how much better the drugs are that are used for other blood cancers, 70-80% of younger AML patients get to CR after a few weeks of starting their intensive induction chemo. We have a long way to go in myeloma to get to that point!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2234651/
"I also wonder why UAMS does not develop allo transplants more systematically"
I took a look at the statistics on allos on marrow.org for UAMS.
This analysis is based on transplants performed from Jan. 1, 2007 through Dec. 31, 2009 using unrelated donors and transplants performed from Jan. 1, 2008 through Dec. 31, 2009 using related donors. It only includes patients who underwent their first allogeneic transplant within these respective time periods and who had at least 100-day follow-up.
1.This center reported survival status data for 22 patients.
2.The actual one-year survival of these patients was 40%.
3.The predicted one-year survival was 66% (with a 95% confidence limit that the predicted survival was between 47% and 84%).
4.This center's actual results are below the predicted range for this center.
http://marrow.org/pages/TransplantCenterDirectory.aspx?ctr_id=580&p_src=state
Autos are a very simple procedure any transplant center can do successfully. Allos are a much more complex procedure that are best left to top notch transplant Doctors to perform. I would recommend any patient considering an allo check and make sure they are having the procedure done by an experienced transplant Doctor at a premiere transplant center.
Mark
Great to hear that you are responding to your induction therapy. UAMS has charts of the low risk patients that attain CR and the results seem good. I would like to see how the patients do after they are off maintenance. It does not seem like much in the way of news to me that patients in CR that continue to take VRD maintenance stay in remission. The thing I find surprising is that only 43% of the patients on "total therapy 3" got a sCR in the first year (figure 1A of the attached link). By that time I would think the patient would have been through 2 induction cycles of VTD PACE, 2 autos and 2 consolidation phases of VTD PACE. I am guessing most of the patients would be into the maintenance phase with I believe would have been Velcade-Thal (not sure if Revlimid was used by the time this study was out) and DEX. That really underscores the urgent need we have for more effective drugs in myeloma. To give you an idea of how much better the drugs are that are used for other blood cancers, 70-80% of younger AML patients get to CR after a few weeks of starting their intensive induction chemo. We have a long way to go in myeloma to get to that point!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2234651/
"I also wonder why UAMS does not develop allo transplants more systematically"
I took a look at the statistics on allos on marrow.org for UAMS.
This analysis is based on transplants performed from Jan. 1, 2007 through Dec. 31, 2009 using unrelated donors and transplants performed from Jan. 1, 2008 through Dec. 31, 2009 using related donors. It only includes patients who underwent their first allogeneic transplant within these respective time periods and who had at least 100-day follow-up.
1.This center reported survival status data for 22 patients.
2.The actual one-year survival of these patients was 40%.
3.The predicted one-year survival was 66% (with a 95% confidence limit that the predicted survival was between 47% and 84%).
4.This center's actual results are below the predicted range for this center.
http://marrow.org/pages/TransplantCenterDirectory.aspx?ctr_id=580&p_src=state
Autos are a very simple procedure any transplant center can do successfully. Allos are a much more complex procedure that are best left to top notch transplant Doctors to perform. I would recommend any patient considering an allo check and make sure they are having the procedure done by an experienced transplant Doctor at a premiere transplant center.
Mark
-
Mark
Return to Treatments & Side Effects