Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40123004›Full record

ArticleBone marrow transplantation2025

Current use of donor lymphocyte infusions after allogenic stem cell transplantation in Europe: a survey on behalf of the cellular therapy and immunobiology working party of the EBMT.

Nicole Santoro, Christoph Schmid, Moniek de Witte, Mieke W H Roeven, Victoria Potter, Deborah Richardson, Thomas Schroeder, Veronika Válková, Katherine Clesham, Sandrine Loron and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Posttransplant cells for the win? DLI and adoptive cell therapy to eradicate MRD.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Nicole SantoroHematology Unit, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Santo Spirito Hospital, Pescara, Italy. nicole.santoro24@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5705-8084
Christoph SchmidDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Augsburg University Hospital and Medical Faculty Comprehensive Cancer Center Augsburg and Bavarian Cancer Research Center, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7070-487X
Moniek de WitteUniversity Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7470-2994
Mieke W H RoevenRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Victoria PotterKings College Hospital London, London, UK.
Deborah RichardsonSouthampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8858-923X
Thomas SchroederUniversity Hospital | Essen, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Veronika VálkováInstitute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, Prague, Czechia.
Katherine CleshamUniversity College London Hospital, London, UK.
Sandrine LoronCentre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Lyon, France.
Jakob PasswegUniversity Hospital | Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7092-3351
Caroline BesleyUniversity Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHSFT, Bristol, UK.
Bernd GruhnDepartment of Pediatrics, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1862-0075
Jorinde D HoogenboomEBMT Leiden Study Unit, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jarl E MooyaartEBMT Statistical Unit, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Isabel Sanchez-OrtegaSecretary of the Practice Harmonization and Guidelines Committee of EBMT; EBMT Medical Officer, Executive Office, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5519-9154
Simona PagliucaDepartment of Hematology, CNRS, Nancy University Hospital; UMR 7365, IMoPA, Lorraine University, Nancy, France.
Federico SimonettaDivision of Hematology, Department of Oncology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Giorgia BattipagliaDepartment of Medicine and Clinical Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0695-3879
Thierry GuillaumeDivision of Hematology, Nantes University Hospital; INSERM U1232 CNRS, CRCINA, Nantes, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5482-8565
Mette D HazenbergDepartment of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Florent MalardSorbonne Université, Centre de Recherche Saint-Antoine INSERM UMRs938, Service d'Hématologie Clinique et de Thérapie Cellulaire, Hôpital Saint Antoine, AP-HP, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3474-0002
Jürgen KuballDepartment of Hematology and Center for Translational Immunology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3914-7806
Annalisa RuggeriSan Raffaele Scientific Institute, Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7261-2765

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unmanipulated donor lymphocyte infusions (DLI) are crucial for enhancing the graft versus tumor (GVT) effect in post-transplant settings. Practices regarding DLI use vary widely among centers, encompassing differences in indications, prerequisites, and application methods. To explore current DLI policies, we developed a comprehensive survey that garnered responses from 165 EBMT centers across 43 countries. Notably, 97% of respondents reported using DLI in their practices. Indications for DLI included preemptive use for minimal residual disease (MRD) positivity in 86.9% of centers and mixed chimerism in 73.1%; therapeutic use for hematological relapse in 73.1%; and prophylactic use for high-risk disease in 43.8%. Active graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and active infections were deemed absolute contraindications by 85.6% and 57.5% of centers, respectively. 35% of centers did not consider a prior history of acute (a)GVHD as an exclusion criterion. The majority (71.9%) requested immunosuppression withdrawal before DLI. Most centers (71.3%) collected DLI post-transplant, with 78.1% utilizing unstimulated apheresis. The cell doses applied at the first DLI varied significantly, depending on indication, timing, and donor type. This survey provides the largest overview of current DLI practices, highlighting the need for high-quality data to assess the risks and benefits of different approaches.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationLymphocyte TransfusionAllograftsEuropeFemaleGraft vs Host DiseaseHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesTissue DonorsTransplantation, Homologous

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.