• May
International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT)
10th Annual Meeting
May 7-10
The Burlington Hotel
Dublin, Ireland

California Blood Bank Society (CBBS)
with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP)
2nd Annual International Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation Symposium
May 14-15
Hilton Los Angeles Airport
Los Angeles, California

American Society of Transplantation (AST)
American Transplant Congress
May 14-19
Hynes Convention Center
Boston, Massachusetts

World Marrow Donor Association (WMDA)
5th International Donor Registry Conference
May 26-29
Keio University Mita Campus
Tokyo, Japan

• June
Canadian Hematology Society (CHS)
Annual Meeting
June 2
London Convention Centre
London, Ontario

Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group (CBMTG)
Biennial Meeting
June 3-6
London Convention Centre
London, Ontario

American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
40th Annual Meeting
June 5-8
Ernest N. Morial Convention Center
New Orleans, Louisiana

International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR)
2nd Annual Meeting
June 10-13
Boston Seaport Hotel
Boston, Massachusetts

• July
International Society for Experimental Hematology (ISEH)
33rd Annual Scientific Meeting
July 17-20
New Orleans Marriott
New Orleans, Louisiana

Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies (FOCIS)
4th Annual Conference
July 18-23
Palais de Congres de Montreal
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

• September
International Conference on Advances Against Aspergillosis
Sept. 9-11
Grand Hyatt San Francisco
San Francisco, California

Yale University and National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP)
Safeguarding Adult and Pediatric Stem Cell Donors: Basic Science, Clinical, and Ethical Issues
Sept. 21-22
Bethesda, Maryland

• October
American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics (ASHI)
30th Annual Meeting
Oct. 1-6
San Antonio Convention Center
San Antonio, Texas

American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT) with the International Society for Cellular Therapy (ISCT)
4rd Annual Conference on Mesenchymal and Nonhematopoietic Stem Cells
Oct. 14-16
Wyndham Hotel
New Orleans, Louisiana

A Word from President Armand Keating, M.D.

“Medical research won a major courtroom victory,” said the editorial in the Wall Street Journal. “The winner is every American who has a stake in biomedical research that underpins so many life-saving treatments and cures.”

A jury in Seattle this past month decided in favor of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and several of its investigators in a case involving the informed consent of leukemia patients in clinical trials some 20 years ago.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, my disclaimer: Early in my career, I was a post-doctoral fellow at “the Hutch.” My recollections are of a remarkably scrupulous and diligent institution that adhered to the highest standards -- a model worth emulating at my own center.

But the families of five former patients didn’t think so. Their relatives were enrolled in a T-cell depletion trial two decades ago. The patients died of graft failure in a study designed to decrease the occurrence and severity of graft-versus-host disease. They sued.

The jury listened to eight weeks of testimony and then deliberated for six days. Their unanimous conclusion was that the patients gave informed consent for their participation in the trials, and that a “reasonably prudent” patient would likely have enrolled given what was known at the time.

Any loss of life is tragic. Clearly the objective of those investigators in the early 1980s was to accomplish a cure, or at least prolong the life of some very ill patients. Carefully considered and well-controlled clinical trials are the only way to advance medical knowledge beyond theory. Trials frequently offer the only hope for patients to beat yet-unbeatable diseases.

There were multiple allegations in the lawsuit, but the court narrowed the issues to informed consent. Much more was at stake than the reputation and finances of an outstanding research center and its investigators. A verdict favorable to the investigators was crucial for the continuation of good clinical research. A different decision from the jurors would have said it’s OK to apply today’s knowledge, medical standards and consent rules to studies conducted decades ago.

A “guilty” verdict could have been chilling for innovative studies. Research centers might understandably be reluctant to enroll very ill patients whose deaths might later be blamed on the trial rather than on the disease. Only the “safest” clinical studies would be considered. Advances in cancer therapy generally, and hematopoietic cell transplants in particular, would become incrementally minor -- if any.

We can take away two messages from Seattle: It is right to do research to cure fatal diseases, but it’s also essential that patients be fully informed when they enroll in a clinical trial. Patients have a right, and we owe them the opportunity, to weigh benefits and risks of their own survival, as well as the benefits for patients down the road.

The Journal applauded our colleagues in Seattle for standing on principle and not taking the easier route of settling with the plaintiffs. Credit is due them for enabling many desperately ill patients to benefit from future clinical trials.

- Cheers, Armand