Talk:Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

The article says research was performed at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center from the 1950s through the 1970s. But the FHCRC did not exist until 1976. E. Donnall Thomas was affiliated with the precursor foundation. According to Wikipedia's own page on FHCRC. Dandante (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

How does the donor feel after donating? Any side-effects to Donor? Any scars or hints or surgery to donor? Weakness??

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.105.145 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Older versions of this article (prior to having it's title changed from BMT to HSCT) can be viewed on the old BMT history page. Mfero 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ouch! That is not the preferred way to do it... I'll see if I can get an admin to merge the histories. // habj 09:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Page historied merged by AzaToth. // habj 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism? I took out the words "don't read this if you want to live..." from the "Types of donors" section while I was reading this page. 74.12.210.220 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC) A wikipedia readerReply

There seems to be a potentially false claim about the 1st marrow transplant. Here it says the first known transplant was performed in '57 by E.D. Thomas, not Mathé in '59. Killing time - till it retaliates. (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've expanded most of the sections on the Bone Marrow Transplant page. My apologies if I messed anything up.

I'd like to know if anyone has an opinion about moving the page to "Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant"? "Bone mone marrow transplant" would then be a redirect. Even though HSCT is more modern and accurate than BMT for the topic it is still a little more awkward. Also there are a huge number of links to this page and probably many of them should be changed.Mfero

No, keep it here. Most lay readers will not have a clue what a haematopoeitic stem cell is, and the fine distinctions between BMT and HSCT. Just redirect HSCT here. JFW | T@lk 06:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree with the first guy, that this article really should be titled HSCT, with a redirect from the bone marrow transplant title to HSCT main page. Very few patients get bone marrow transplants anymore, since peripheral blood stem cell transplants are safer and more effective...I think I'm going to do it tonight, since this doesn't seem like a very active concern--64.166.186.217 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd be fine with moving it - this comes up a lot: whether to use the more medically exact and correct term, or the one more likely to be recognizable to a wide audience. I think moving the page to HSCT, and leaving "bone marrow transplant" as a redirect would be fine. To quibble, stem cells are more effective for a lot of indications, but in conditions where graft-vs.-tumor is not a consideration (eg aplastics), bone marrow is still a preferred source. MastCell 23:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi--I moved and updated the BMT page to the HSCT page, updated links and talk page. Someone had to move HSCT into the 1990s! I think MastCell is correct about the preference for BMT in AA, and that's an excellent point that somehow should be inserted in the mainpage. I will verify this with my friendly neighborhood transplanter.--Dr.michael.benjamin 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This page currently has a large disclaimer stating that it has been suggested to merge it with the article entitled Stem cell transplantation. The latter article is not a really a new article but is derived from the Bone marrow transplant article that I contributed to several years ago. The biggest change seems to be the photograph showing bone marrow being aspirated in the operating room.

IMO the current (HSCT) article is has become messy. I don't mind the aspiration photo on the SCT page but it should be made clear that this refers to the older method of harvesting marrow under anesthesia as opposed to a peripheral blood stem cell harvest. I suppose the real question is whether this the name of this article should be renamed from 'Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation' to simply 'Stem Cell Transplantation'. Even though I think the Stem Cell Transplant version looks better I would argue that the name should not be changed. The reason is that the term stem cell transplant could, in theory, refer to organs other than the blood and bone marrow and is not specific enough for this article.

Thus I would be in favor of the following: 1. Keep Hematopoeitic Stem Cell Transplantation as the primary article. 2. Adopt the text (and photo) from 'Stem Cell Transplant' --or at least clean up the current version of HSCT. 3. Delete the (redundant) 'Stem Cell Transplantation' page. 4. Make 'Stem Cell Transplantation' redirect here.

Any thoughts? --Mfero 00:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just got the SHOCK - I was editting this page yesterday and never noticed the "merge" suggestion, and there it is, the mirror page. I definitely agree that it should be sone, and the re-direct solves any issue of technical correctness or popularity for readers. But have the technical difficulties prevented the merge all these months? I take it that there is no wiki tool to accomplish this. If consensus exists already, I would try maybe at the weekend (if the tax returns dont get in the way) - any volunteers to assist in proofreading?io_editor (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

HSCT/BMT should stand alone. The field developed in a very specific manner, and its history and unique characteristics should be preserved 141.106.78.144 (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)RimasReply

Myelodysplasia is a common indication for allogeneic transplants in adults, second only to AML in terms of frequency. The risk/benefit ratio depends on the age of the patient, donor availability, features indicating a high risk of transformation to AML, and the expertise level of the transplant center. Mfero 20:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

"In the case of a bone marrow transplant (BMT), the HSC are removed from a large bone of the donor, typically the pelvis, through a large needle that reaches the center of the bone. The technique is referred as a bone marrow harvest and is performed with general anesthesia because literally hundreds of insertions of the needle are required to obtain sufficient material."

I thought this was actually done under a local, which would explain why people say that donating bone marrow is extremely painful. Can someone clear this up for me? --El Zilcho 17:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bone marrow harvests are generally done in the operating room under general anesthesia. On the other hand, a stem cell transplant can be also done through a peripheral blood collection of stem cells (after the bone marrow has been stimulated with medication). Andrew73 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

ChristineD, please site a credible reference for your last edit. A fictional one will not suffice as an accurate source. Ktinga

Agreed... I've heard of this happening on, say, Law and Order, but I'm not aware of any real-life cases. If one could be cited, then by all means let's include it. Until then, I think describing it as an "eventuality" is a little inappropriate. MastCell 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

[Mammalian Red Blood] Do not have DNA or a nucleus so it appears to be fiction. Ktinga 16:13 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, after a transplant all cellular elements of the blood are replaced by donor cells, including the white cells, which contain DNA and are presumably the substrate for forensic DNA testing. MastCell 18:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The fictional reference wasn't intended as a source, just as an example (could do a section BMT in literature?). I read an article in a newspaper (but I have no memory of where or when) in which a real life police person said this was a real problem. That was the basis for including this section. I hoped that once it was out there the reference could be added by someone who knows more.

Anyway I've looked it up on Pub med now and the abstract for this article (What do the X and Y chromosomes tell us about sex and gender in forensic case analysis? ) mentions it ('Problems may arise not only from false detection (or non-detection) of amelogenin-specific fragments, but also in cases of chimerism (bone marrow transplants) or micro chimerism (pregnant women carrying male fetuses)...'). I don't have online access to the papers from home to find an original source for this particular question, however, I will see to it soonest and then revert

but I'm not aware of any real-life cases

I think the idea of thinking about eventualites is so that it doesn't happen in real life. This is a real issue but hopefully by increasing awareness of it, any real life cases can be resolved quickly and not end up reported in the media as a miscarriage of justice. ChristineD 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I tried to add an external link to the EBMT website, but it was removed. I would just like to know why it doesn't qualify and where could it be added? Thanks. Melisa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfero (talk • contribs).

A link to EBMT should be fine. Not sure why it was removed (perhaps an innocent casualty of a mass spam deletion), but go ahead and re-add it. MastCell 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is it just me, or is the third external link an advertisement for a company that wants your stem cells? Advertising has to be against some sort of wikipedia policy. If nothing else then for writing the description in the first person. SkaryMonk (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering. The side effects of autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation are reasonably different. This is intimated in the paragraph about autologous transplant but I'm wondering if this neds to be clarified, say after the section on allogeneic stem cell complications.. ie. indications, method, outcomes and complications for autologous so that readers don't get them confused? Markjohndaley 14:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a good suggestion. Feel free to go for it; I've been meaning to work on this page for awhile but not sure when I'll get around to it. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Autologous SCT has sufficiently different indications, processes and results (side effects etc.) from Allogenic to warrant its own section (if not its own full blown page). Go for it. Lorangriel 16:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree it needs its own section. I noticed that syngeneic stem cell transplant was left out. It is a rare stem cell transplant involving a twin sibling donor but it is very important to also include it. Gina2009 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article lacks a history section. When was the first bone marrow transplant performed, etc. // habj 06:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I came to this page looking for a history and I can't find it. 11 years later and still no history?

History merge completed! _→AzaToth 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

There could be a section on what conditions are prohibitive in marrow donors. For example, I think the British NHS does not accept donors with rheumatic conditions e.g. lupus, rheumatoid arthritis etc. 212.179.71.70 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

While there are some absolute barriers to donation, which vary from organization to organization, most cases are a bit more fluid. The decision about whether to use a donor with certain health conditions may be individualized to take into account the known risks to the donor and recipient as well as the seriousness of the donor's condition and how serious and immediate the need for a transplant is, as well as the availability of alternate donors or stem cell sources. That said, any sourced info you can dig up would be useful to add. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe in the US homosexuals or MSM are barred from donating, anyone know if this is true? How about other countries? 98.28.114.174 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The rules on this issue depend upon the register. For instance, the Anthony Nolan register in the UK does not impose this bar but instead excludes people if they "are involved in high-risk sexual practices that may increase [their] exposure to sexually-transmitted diseases." The definition of high-risk sexual practices is left up to the donor's best judgement, since these may vary widely whether the donor is homosexual or heterosexual. In the USA, there are a number of different registries, and I don't know the rules for all of them, but the largest (the NMDP) excludes men who've had sex with men in the past five years.Procrastinator supreme (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

In graft v tumor effect, someone was trying to say something, and it came out wrong: "This lower rate of relapse accounts for the increased success rate of allogeneic transplants compared to transplants from identical twins, and indicates that allogeneic HSCT is a form of immunotherapy." Am referring mainly to fist clause, did they mean HLA-mis-matched v HLA-matched allogeneics? And where is the source?? New to me....io_editor (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you compare syngeneic transplants (that is, from one identical twin to another) with allogeneic transplants (between HLA-matched or mismatched individuals), the allogeneics will have lower relapse rates (of course, they'll also get GVHD). This difference in relapse rates between syngeneic and allogeneic transplants was one of the main pieces of clinical evidence for the existence of an immunologic graft-vs.-tumor effect. Does that make sense? It needs to be written more clearly. This article has been on my list for awhile; hopefully I can help out on it soon. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, my brain registered just siblings, not identical twins, when the comparator wasn't autologous. There must be on the order of 100-300 per year of such HSCTs worldwide. Funny ordering of logic (general plus the obscure) but all is correct, so am inclined to leave it. Actually I think this is a great WikiMed page (although it could have a dozen more cites) - simply because it manages to avoid going off-tangent, except for such interesting details.io_editor (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesnt really work that Indications is up the page, and that this is down the page. Suggestions? Cant think of any, other than to move the list up, even if that means removing some prose. Will leave it alone for now.io_editor (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

This page currently has a large disclaimer stating that it has been suggested to merge it with the article entitled Stem cell transplantation. The latter article is not a really a new article but is derived from the Bone marrow transplant article that I contributed to several years ago. The biggest change seems to be the photograph showing bone marrow being aspirated in the operating room.

IMO the current (HSCT) article is has become messy. I don't mind the aspiration photo on the SCT page but it should be made clear that this refers to the older method of harvesting marrow under anesthesia as opposed to a peripheral blood stem cell harvest. I suppose the real question is whether this the name of this article should be renamed from 'Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation' to simply 'Stem Cell Transplantation'. Even though I think the Stem Cell Transplant version looks better I would argue that the name should not be changed. The reason is that the term stem cell transplant could, in theory, refer to organs other than the blood and bone marrow and is not specific enough for this article.

Thus I would be in favor of the following: 1. Keep Hematopoeitic Stem Cell Transplantation as the primary article. 2. Adopt the text (and photo) from 'Stem Cell Transplant' --or at least clean up the current version of HSCT. 3. Delete the (redundant) 'Stem Cell Transplantation' page. 4. Make 'Stem Cell Transplantation' redirect here.

Any thoughts? --Mfero 00:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many months later, its time to do it, exactly as was suggested above. Step 2 is done, and Steps 1, 3 and 4 can be done now. Bone marrow transplantation would remain separate. I assume an Admin is needed to formalize.io_editor (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

How does the donor feel after donating? Any side-effects to Donor? Any scars or hints or surgery to donor? Weakness??

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.105.145 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please consider adding Syngeneic Stem Cell Transplant as it is part of a stem cell transplantation type in which a twin sibling is a donor and there is no graft versus host disease. I don't understand why it was left out. It is a rare procedure, but it is part of the SCT process for those who are lucky enough to have a twin sibling.

Gina2009 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I have added it. You are of course welcome to add to or edit what I have written. That's what Wikipedia is about - if you think something is wrong or missing, you can put it right! Rachel Pearce (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can autologous bone marrow transplant and autologous bone marrow be redirected to the sub title autologous in the section graft types. It would get those two links out of the cancer dictionary I am trying to prune of links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb1l (talk • contribs) 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This looks like a good reference to add: http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/abstract/blood-2010-09-309591v1 ThanAngell (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit troubled by the weight given to the HIV case in this article. This is certainly an exciting and encouraging development, especially for the patient, but seems to be of inappropriate length, tone and placement in a stem cell article in a general encyclopaedia.

• First, this is an anecdote. The level of coverage in popular and scientific sources probably justifies its inclusion somewhere in the article, but we can't lose sight of the anecdotal nature of the evidence (see MEDRS).
• The patient's name should be removed. Although it has been disclosed in several sources, it doesn't add anything to this article and may be a bit blp-ish.
• The "cure" wording should be toned down. Talk of a cure is probably premature. Although the researchers themselves and numerous commentators have made the case for using this language, other scientists caution that HIV has numerous hiding places in the body, making it impossible to prove that the patient has been cured. Some interesting data have been reported, but without confirmation in other cases, this can't command much space in an encyclopaedia.
• The section should be moved elsewhere in the article. Stem cell transplants are not "indicated" for HIV, not by Huetter et al and not by any other authorities. This was a unique case in which the need to treat leukaemia outweighed the life-threatening risks involved in the procedure.

I'm going to go ahead and make some changes, but if others feel strongly about the current version, I'm of course ready to discuss. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A diagram could help this article, but is beyond my talents. Ideally, I feel it should convey something similar to the information carried in the top image or two from here: http://www.netterimages.com/images/vpv/000/000/005/5836-0550x0475.jpg - Demonstrating autologous vs allogeneic transplantation - Demonstrating that haematopoietic stem cells are infused into the recipient's bloodstream, and then embed themselves in the bone marrow - Possibly also demonstrating the three possible allogeneic sources (PBSCs, bone marrow aspirate, cord blood stem cells), although this runs the risk of making the image a little crowded.Procrastinator supreme (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This is my first time discussing any kind of edit on Wikipedia, so maybe a more experienced editor can help me. It appears that the section on VOD does not contain updated information with regard to defibrotide. Defibrotide does reduce the severity of VOD, yes, but it also reduces the incidence of VOD full-stop, among other benefits. (Corbacioglu, Lancet 2012). Do I just type my suggested edits in the main page? Thanks. Emanresuymsti. Emanresuymsti (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

By all means, although if you have a reputable citation to give that would back the statement up, it would be ideal if you could include that. Apologies for the late reply.Procrastinator supreme (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

You can go ahead and edit the page, by all means. Go ahead and write up a mention in whatever part of our article you think makes sense. To add a citation to the Lancet paper, you can cut-and-paste the following: <ref>{{cite journal |author=Corbacioglu S, Cesaro S, Faraci M, ''et al.'' |title=Defibrotide for prophylaxis of hepatic veno-occlusive disease in paediatric haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation: an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial |journal=Lancet |volume=379 |issue=9823 |pages=1301–9 |year=2012 |month=April |pmid=22364685 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61938-7 |url=}}</ref> where you want the reference to appear. That will generate a footnote and citation. It's not very intuitive, but don't be afraid if it doesn't come out right... someone will come along and help fix it. I'll probably go ahead and add the article myself once I have to time look at it. You may want to make clear that it deals excluively with a pediatric population. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

doi:10.1182/blood-2014-05-566679 - total of 5 articles JFW | T@lk 12:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dba/stem.html ): "The person’s blood type will actually change to that of the donor." 208.103.112.69 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unknown which term is used here, when they write about the blood type. Is not specified, it AB0 system. —Fnaq (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

"The first physician to perform a successful human bone marrow transplant on a disease other than cancer was Robert A. Good at the University of Minnesota in 1968.[42] In 1975, John Kersey, M.D., also of the University of Minnesota, performed the first successful bone marrow transplant to cure lymphoma. His patient, a 16-year-old-boy, is today the longest-living lymphoma transplant survivor.[43]"

Isn't lymphoma a type of cancer? Am I missing something here? IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The most recent (as I write this) change is to link to the Annual Report of the World Marrow Donors Assocation. Unfortunately it can't be used without logging in. Is that a valid reference for a Wikipedia article? Honest question, I do not know the policy. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220101951/http://www.bmdw.org/uploads/media/BMDW2012.pdf to http://www.bmdw.org/uploads/media/BMDW2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Medical uses section already mentions that autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis can potentially be treated with HSCT. Could the diseases mentioned later on be added to that bullet point or removed? 2600:1002:B01E:5A8C:0:4C:8EB1:2401 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sbplr5 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sbplr5 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, @Coskunahmet38, would you care to convert that inline link into a reference? IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply