Long-Term Outcome Following Treatment With Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells for Radiation-Induced Hyposalivation and Xerostomia.
Jakobsen KK., Lynggaard CD., Paaske N., Carlander AF., Kastrup J., Hauge AW.
Prospective Study with a reported sample of 10, published in Stem Cells Transl Med (2024) — 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 Transl Med (2024)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- 10
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 38578768
- PMCID
- PMC11165157
- DOI
- 10.1093/stcltm/szae017
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
Background Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (ASCs) are proposed as a new xerostomia treatment. The study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of allogeneic ASCs in radiation-induced xerostomia among patients with previous oropharyngeal cancer. Methods This study constitutes 3-year follow-up on the original 10 patients who received allogeneic ASCs injections to the submandibular and parotid glands as part of the MESRIX-II trial. The MESRIX-II trial included the preliminary 4-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was long-term safety. Secondary endpoints were effectiveness evaluated by changes in salivary flow rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Immune response was evaluated by assessing the development of donor-specific antibodies (DSA). Findings All 10 MESRIX-II patients completed the long-term follow-up (ie, no missing data). During the long-term follow-up, 2 patients encountered a significant adverse event, which was determined to be unrelated to the treatment. No DSAs were detectable at 3 years. The stimulated salivary flow rate increased significantly from an average of 0.66 mL/minute at baseline to 0.86 mL/minute at follow-up, corresponding to an increase of 0.20 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.30] mL/minute, or approximately 30%. Among the PROs, sticky saliva symptoms were reduced, with a -20.0 [95% CI -37.3 to -2.7] units. Interpretation In conclusion,
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.