Author
Christian Junghanss
Bio: Christian Junghanss is an academic researcher from University of Rostock. The author has contributed to research in topics: Transplantation & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 144 publications receiving 2514 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center1, University of California, San Francisco2, University of Bologna3, Bombay Hospital, Indore4, Hospital General de México5, Catholic University of Korea6, University of Rostock7, Medical University of Łódź8, University Medical Center Groningen9, Bristol-Myers Squibb10
TL;DR: Primary data showed superior efficacy for dasatinib compared with imatinib after 12 months, including significantly higher rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), confirmed CCyR (primary end point), and major molecular response (MMR).
546 citations
••
TL;DR: The therapeutic strategy could become a new standard of care after autologous stem-cell transplantation; however, prophylactic platelet transfusion should remain the standard for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia.
273 citations
••
TL;DR: It is pointed out that mTORC1 inhibitors, either as a single agent or in combination with Akt inhibitors, could represent a potential therapeutic innovative strategy in B-pre ALL.
Abstract: B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-pre ALL) is a malignant disorder characterized by the abnormal proliferation of B-cell progenitors. The prognosis of B-pre ALL has improved in pediatric patients, but the outcome is much less successful in adults. Constitutive activation of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K), Akt and the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) (PI3K/Akt/mTOR) network is a feature of B-pre ALL, where it strongly influences cell growth and survival. RAD001, a selective mTORC1 inhibitor, has been shown to be cytotoxic against many types of cancer including hematological malignancies. To investigate whether mTORC1 could represent a target in the therapy of B-pre ALL, we treated cell lines and adult patient primary cells with RAD001. We documented that RAD001 decreased cell viability, induced cell cycle arrest in G0/G1 phase and caused apoptosis in B-pre ALL cell lines. Autophagy was also induced, which was important for the RAD001 cytotoxic effect, as downregulation of Beclin-1 reduced drug cytotoxicity. RAD001 strongly synergized with the novel allosteric Akt inhibitor MK-2206 in both cell lines and patient samples. Similar results were obtained with the combination CCI-779 plus GSK 690693. These findings point out that mTORC1 inhibitors, either as a single agent or in combination with Akt inhibitors, could represent a potential therapeutic innovative strategy in B-pre ALL.
104 citations
••
TL;DR: Azacitidine is active and well tolerated in elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML, and lower marrow blasts on day 15 of cycle 1, irrespective of pretreatment count, predicted subsequent response.
Abstract: The safety and efficacy of azacitidine (5-day schedule) were assessed in a multicenter study in 40 patients (median age 72 years) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) medically unfit for (n = 20) or resistant to chemotherapy (n = 20) from April to October 2008. Median marrow blasts were 42%. After a median follow-up of 13 months, response (complete remission [CR]/partial remission [PR]/hematologic improvement [HI]) was 50% and 10% in newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory patients, respectively (p = 0.008). Median time-to-response was 2.5 months with a median duration of 5.9 months. Median survival was not reached for responders versus 3.8 months for 15 (38%) patients with stable disease (p < 0.045). High-risk cytogenetics was associated with inferior survival (p = 0.05). Lower marrow blasts on day 15 of cycle 1, irrespective of pretreatment count, predicted subsequent response (p = 0.01). Azacitidine is active and well tolerated in elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML.
102 citations
••
TL;DR: There were no differences in the efficacy and safety of itraconazole and fluconazole prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies and no differences were detected between treatment groups in proven or suspected invasive fungal infections or other endpoints.
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: This trial studied the efficacy and safety of itraconazole and fluconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An 8 week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre trial comparing itraconazole oral solution (2.5 mg/kg twice daily; N=248) with fluconazole oral solution or capsules (400 mg daily; N=246) in 494 patients with anticipated profound neutropenia (i.e. neutrophil count expected to be <500 cells/mm3 for at least 10 days) from tertiary care centres. RESULTS: Invasive fungal infections were reported for 4 out of 248 patients (1.6%) in the itraconazole group and 5 out of 246 patients (2.0%) in the fluconazole group. Invasive Aspergillus infections were proven for 2 out of 248 patients (0.8%) in the itraconazole group and 3 out of 246 patients (1.2%) in the fluconazole group. For both the ITT and profoundly neutropenic populations, no differences were detected between treatment groups in proven or suspected invasive fungal infections or other endpoints. The mortality rates owing to proven invasive fungal infections were 2 out of 248 patients (0.8%) for the itraconazole group and 3 out of 246 patients (1.2%) for the fluconazole group. There was also no difference between treatment groups in the number of patients who recovered from neutropenia or in the duration of neutropenia. More discontinuation of drug intake owing to nausea and more hypokalaemia occurred in the itraconazole group, other adverse events and the total number of adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study there were no differences in the efficacy and safety of itraconazole and fluconazole prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies.
102 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
St George's Hospital1, New York University2, McMaster University3, Brown University4, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart5, Hebron University6, University of Manitoba7, Emory University Hospital8, Hebrew University of Jerusalem9, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre10, University of Pittsburgh11, Saint Thomas - West Hospital12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University Medical Center14, Keio University15, Memorial Hospital of South Bend16, Cooper University Hospital17, University of Mississippi Medical Center18, Rush University Medical Center19, University of Ulsan20, Federal University of São Paulo21, Regions Hospital22, St. Michael's Hospital23, Washington University in St. Louis24, Ottawa Hospital25, University of Sydney26, Mount Sinai Hospital27, University of New South Wales28, Fujita Health University29, Christiana Care Health System30, Stanford University31, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology32, University of Kansas33, Harvard University34, California Pacific Medical Center35, University of Amsterdam36, Houston Methodist Hospital37
TL;DR: Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
4,303 citations
••
University of Ulm1, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center2, King's College London3, University of Rome Tor Vergata4, University of Münster5, Brigham and Women's Hospital6, University of Chicago7, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center8, Leipzig University9, VU University Amsterdam10, University of Valencia11, National Taiwan University12, Monash University13, Alfred Hospital14, Erasmus University Medical Center15, Ohio State University16
TL;DR: An international panel to provide updated evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia in adults includes a revised version of the ELN genetic categories, a proposal for a response category based on MRD status, and criteria for progressive disease.
4,066 citations
•
3,097 citations
••
University of Ulm1, University of Rome Tor Vergata2, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center3, University of Münster4, University of Wales5, University of Chicago6, Nagoya University7, Leipzig University8, VU University Medical Center9, Northwestern University10, Erasmus University Medical Center11, Ohio State University12
TL;DR: An international expert panel is provided to provide updated evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of AML, that contain both minimal requirements for general practice as well as standards for clinical trials.
3,000 citations
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: An overview of the self-organizing map algorithm, on which the papers in this issue are based, is presented in this article, where the authors present an overview of their work.
Abstract: An overview of the self-organizing map algorithm, on which the papers in this issue are based, is presented in this article.
2,933 citations