Risk of tumorigenicity in mesenchymal stromal cell-based therapies--bridging scientific observations and regulatory viewpoints.
Barkholt L., Flory E., Jekerle V., Lucas-Samuel S., Ahnert P., Bisset L.
Narrative Review, published in Cytotherapy (2013) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- 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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Cytotherapy (2013)
- Country
- England
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 23602595
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jcyt.2013.03.005
Abstract (original English)
In the past decade, the therapeutic value of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) has been studied in various indications, thereby taking advantage of their immunosuppressive properties. Easy procurement from bone marrow, adipose tissue or other sources and conventional in vitro expansion culture have made their clinical use attractive. Bridging the gap between current scientific knowledge and regulatory prospects on the transformation potential and possible tumorigenicity of MSCs, the Cell Products Working Party and the Committee for Advanced Therapies organized a meeting with leading European experts in the field of MSCs. This meeting elucidated the risk of potential tumorigenicity related to MSC-based therapies from two angles: the scientific perspective and the regulatory point of view. The conclusions of this meeting, including the current regulatory thinking on quality, nonclinical and clinical aspects for MSCs, are presented in this review, leading to a clearer way forward for the development of such products.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.