Functional Comparison between Healthy and Multiple Myeloma Adipose Stromal Cells.
Espagnolle N., Hebraud B., Descamps JG., Gadelorge M., Joubert MV., Ferreira LDS.
Prospective Study, published in Stem Cells Int (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- Stem Cells Int (2020)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 32215016
- PMCID
- PMC7077052
- DOI
- 10.1155/2020/4173578
- Citations
- 4
Abstract (original English)
Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable B cell neoplasia characterized by the accumulation of tumor plasma cells within the bone marrow (BM). As a consequence, bone osteolytic lesions develop in 80% of patients and remain even after complete disease remission. We and others had demonstrated that BM-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are abnormal in MM and thus cannot be used for autologous treatment to repair bone damage. Adipose stromal cells (ASCs) represent an interesting alternative to MSCs for cellular therapy. Thus, in this study, we wondered whether they could be a good candidate in repairing MM bone lesions. For the first time, we present a transcriptomic, phenotypic, and functional comparison of ASCs from MM patients and healthy donors (HDs) relying on their autologous MSC counterparts. In contrast to MM MSCs, MM ASCs did not exhibit major abnormalities. However, the changes observed in MM ASCs and the supportive property of ASCs on MM cells question their putative and safety uses at an autologous or allogenic level.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.