Watching the Barn Door Open—Timing CML Stem Cell Allografts

IF 10.1 1区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
Jeffrey H. Lipton
{"title":"Watching the Barn Door Open—Timing CML Stem Cell Allografts","authors":"Jeffrey H. Lipton","doi":"10.1002/ajh.27722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n<div>\n<p><i>The timing of your decision is just in important as the decision you make</i>.</p> John C. Maxwell </div>\n</div>\n<p>The management of CML has evolved over the last quarter century or so, transforming this once fatal disease into one that is curable or at least controllable [<span>1</span>]. With the routine use of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy, life expectancy is near normal compared to age-matched controls [<span>2</span>] although quality of life (QOL) may not be normal [<span>3, 4</span>]. Survival has not really improved beyond what was seen with the first generation of these drugs, but newer drugs have helped with issues of resistance and intolerance, making the need to use more aggressive options a much less frequent event.</p>\n<p>In the pre-TKI era, the only option for possible “cure” with the rare exception of interferon therapy, was an allogeneic bone marrow, now stem cell transplant [<span>5, 6</span>]. This, however, was a reality if a patient was young, usually under the age of 40 years, had a matched sibling, had reasonable health, was near a transplant program, and had reimbursement for this costly procedure. In the western world, where the median age of CML diagnosis is in the mid-60s, or the developing world, where the procedure was not technically available or reimbursed, it can be seen that the majority of patients were left with palliative management only. If this was all that was available, major developments in allografting have occurred, which have changed the landscape. Patients can now be transplanted into their eighth decade, co-morbidities can often be managed, reduced intensity conditioning is less acutely toxic, better graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis and therapy are available, costs are down, and more centers are available. But most significantly, with the availability of a larger donor pool—alternate related donors, unrelated donor registries, and haploidentical donors—allografting could be available to more people [<span>7, 8</span>]. The converse of this is…so what. With the appearance of imatinib and subsequent TKIs, the need for allografting almost disappeared, and along with it, the memory that allografting still exists and may be appropriate in a small number of cases.</p>\n<p>In parallel, advancements in TKI development have yielded newer drugs that in many cases can deal with resistance or intolerance of earlier drugs and for some patients with co-morbidities, may be safer and without the problem of adverse events or side effects [<span>9, 10</span>]. This has reduced but not eliminated the need to consider an allograft. On the other hand, more frequent chronic problems can sometimes be replaced with more serious issues or, in cases of the newest drugs, unknown long-term issues, if any. Risk/benefit ratios become important, and the use of a potentially “riskier” drug can be justified with more advanced CML, after careful thought, discussion, and consent.</p>\n<p>This commentary will not deal in general with the indications for allografting. I want to use the term “timing” to reflect not the disease state when to transplant [<span>11</span>], but when to do it once the decision becomes clear. The indications have been well reviewed [<span>5, 6</span>] and other than the few cases where a newer drug can overcome resistance or intolerance, remain the same. Issues like advanced disease, clonal progression or disease progression, uncontrolled multi-drug resistance or persistent hematological toxicity remain the arguments for considering it. What I would like to consider here is the timing of an allograft, or to paraphrase Goldilocks in nursery rhymes—not too soon, not too late, but just right!</p>\n<p>Historically pre-TKI, it has been shown that allografting early after diagnosis, within one to 2 years, is optimal for the best outcome [<span>12</span>]. Even transplanting after failed alpha-interferon was very successful long term [<span>13</span>]. Transplant at a later time or with more advanced disease had inferior results [<span>14</span>]. There was concern that the early benefits would be lost by the delay that results from attempting therapy with TKI before moving on to allografting. For the most part, this has been shown to be a non-issue even after second generation drugs if the transplant was done in chronic phase [<span>15-17</span>]. This has been shown to be true even with expanded donor options and transplant approaches [<span>18, 19</span>].</p>\n<p>CML has traditionally been treated by two separated groups—the conventional CML treaters and the transplanters. On rare occasions, an individual may do both, which may be an advantage when allografting enters the picture. In this day and age, the former is by far the larger group and may consist of qualified hematologists, oncologists, and generalists. Depending on the size of the CML practice, this comes with differing degrees of expertise, comfort, and perspective. For example, a practice may have a huge benign component, a solid tumor component, and a lesser malignant hematology component made up of many diseases, with CML being uncommon. Given that so many CML patients have no major issues, it is understandable that some of the intricacies of an uncommon disease may not be obvious to this group. The concern that is raised by the transplanter is usually based on why referral is so late, with obvious worsening of disease or general health. Recommendations from the NCCN [<span>20</span>] or soon to be updated ELN [<span>21</span>], or local, which take available resources into consideration, should be consulted.</p>\n<p>I want to start with my impression of the reasons for delayed or missed referral for allografting. I expect that the most common is that the role of allografting for CML has not been on the radar for years or decades. Unlike autografting for myeloma or allografting for acute leukemia, which are now built into management algorithms, allografting for CML is not. This may be due to CML education, whether academically based or marketing driven, that primarily deals with TKIs and competes with educational programs for other diseases that are more common. The second reason would most likely be due to a concern about the toxicity of an allograft. Much has changed over the decades, and transplants are safer—not completely safe, but safer than they were decades ago. But then TKI therapy is not completely safe [<span>22</span>]. The third may very well be the wrong impression of who is eligible for a transplant—age, disease status, donor availability, co-morbidities. Unless someone is in a center where allografts are being done for any disease, there may exist unknowns or old information, and a lot has changed. The fourth is more concerning. The attitude that this is something to consider when there is nothing else available is ancient history, and this will be discussed below. The last could be due to a reimbursement or transplant availability issue, which is now outside the bounds of a medical decision.</p>\n<p>The reasons for refusal to transplant vary but usually are based on not meeting the eligibility criteria for a “standard” transplant. Disease may have progressed, for example, uncontrolled blast crisis, the rare case now where there is no donor identified, poor co-morbid health, patient unwilling to consent to the transplant or appropriate follow-up. Some centers may offer “experimental” or “study” transplants which will consider patients otherwise ineligible.</p>\n<p>Why is delaying an allograft risky for either a higher risk of failure of the transplant or even for being able to get a transplant? There are a number of criteria on this list. They include the disease now not having a likely chance of benefiting or a high risk of relapse, worsening candidate health makes the risk of treatment-related mortality or morbidity higher, the donor no longer being available because of health reasons or concerns about their own risks or donor disappearance from a registry, either temporarily or permanently, waiting lists at some centers, and changes in reimbursement coverage. Once eligible, always eligible is not a reality. There is a quality window here.</p>\n<p>How to proceed then with getting the appropriate patient to a timely allograft? There are a number of branches in this decision road, and I will try to identify my approach. The first is simple. Is this patient a transplant candidate? In deciding this, the patient has exhausted all other therapies that can yield a durable response, not just all other available therapies. In the absence of resistance directed by specific mutations that might respond to another TKI, or intolerance that may be specific drug related, now is the time. Flipping between second or third generation drugs for the sake of allograft avoidance or delay puts the patient at risk. If the need for an allograft is inevitable, then why wait? If there is still insistence on trying another drug, then rare positive results should be available in 2–3 months, and if they are not obvious, move on.</p>\n<p>A delay in a patient who may have another medical condition that can be corrected to reduce allograft risk could be considered. An example might be cardiac stent placement. The same might be true for the best donor, so long as the delay does not affect the patient.</p>\n<p>Start the process. Above all, if unsure, a referral to a transplant program is prudent. Initiation of family member identification and HLA-typing, unrelated donor search if it is done outside of the transplant center, and referral to other services for patient “buffing” should be done sooner rather than later.</p>\n<p>Allografts after TKI therapy are still very effective if done on time. Logic should tell us, that at best a delay will not improve outcome and in fact may yield an inferior result. So why wait? In the words of George Bernard Shaw—“Nothing is worth doing unless the consequences may be serious.” A missed successful transplant opportunity is what I would call serious.</p>","PeriodicalId":7724,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hematology","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.27722","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The timing of your decision is just in important as the decision you make.

John C. Maxwell

The management of CML has evolved over the last quarter century or so, transforming this once fatal disease into one that is curable or at least controllable [1]. With the routine use of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy, life expectancy is near normal compared to age-matched controls [2] although quality of life (QOL) may not be normal [3, 4]. Survival has not really improved beyond what was seen with the first generation of these drugs, but newer drugs have helped with issues of resistance and intolerance, making the need to use more aggressive options a much less frequent event.

In the pre-TKI era, the only option for possible “cure” with the rare exception of interferon therapy, was an allogeneic bone marrow, now stem cell transplant [5, 6]. This, however, was a reality if a patient was young, usually under the age of 40 years, had a matched sibling, had reasonable health, was near a transplant program, and had reimbursement for this costly procedure. In the western world, where the median age of CML diagnosis is in the mid-60s, or the developing world, where the procedure was not technically available or reimbursed, it can be seen that the majority of patients were left with palliative management only. If this was all that was available, major developments in allografting have occurred, which have changed the landscape. Patients can now be transplanted into their eighth decade, co-morbidities can often be managed, reduced intensity conditioning is less acutely toxic, better graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis and therapy are available, costs are down, and more centers are available. But most significantly, with the availability of a larger donor pool—alternate related donors, unrelated donor registries, and haploidentical donors—allografting could be available to more people [7, 8]. The converse of this is…so what. With the appearance of imatinib and subsequent TKIs, the need for allografting almost disappeared, and along with it, the memory that allografting still exists and may be appropriate in a small number of cases.

In parallel, advancements in TKI development have yielded newer drugs that in many cases can deal with resistance or intolerance of earlier drugs and for some patients with co-morbidities, may be safer and without the problem of adverse events or side effects [9, 10]. This has reduced but not eliminated the need to consider an allograft. On the other hand, more frequent chronic problems can sometimes be replaced with more serious issues or, in cases of the newest drugs, unknown long-term issues, if any. Risk/benefit ratios become important, and the use of a potentially “riskier” drug can be justified with more advanced CML, after careful thought, discussion, and consent.

This commentary will not deal in general with the indications for allografting. I want to use the term “timing” to reflect not the disease state when to transplant [11], but when to do it once the decision becomes clear. The indications have been well reviewed [5, 6] and other than the few cases where a newer drug can overcome resistance or intolerance, remain the same. Issues like advanced disease, clonal progression or disease progression, uncontrolled multi-drug resistance or persistent hematological toxicity remain the arguments for considering it. What I would like to consider here is the timing of an allograft, or to paraphrase Goldilocks in nursery rhymes—not too soon, not too late, but just right!

Historically pre-TKI, it has been shown that allografting early after diagnosis, within one to 2 years, is optimal for the best outcome [12]. Even transplanting after failed alpha-interferon was very successful long term [13]. Transplant at a later time or with more advanced disease had inferior results [14]. There was concern that the early benefits would be lost by the delay that results from attempting therapy with TKI before moving on to allografting. For the most part, this has been shown to be a non-issue even after second generation drugs if the transplant was done in chronic phase [15-17]. This has been shown to be true even with expanded donor options and transplant approaches [18, 19].

CML has traditionally been treated by two separated groups—the conventional CML treaters and the transplanters. On rare occasions, an individual may do both, which may be an advantage when allografting enters the picture. In this day and age, the former is by far the larger group and may consist of qualified hematologists, oncologists, and generalists. Depending on the size of the CML practice, this comes with differing degrees of expertise, comfort, and perspective. For example, a practice may have a huge benign component, a solid tumor component, and a lesser malignant hematology component made up of many diseases, with CML being uncommon. Given that so many CML patients have no major issues, it is understandable that some of the intricacies of an uncommon disease may not be obvious to this group. The concern that is raised by the transplanter is usually based on why referral is so late, with obvious worsening of disease or general health. Recommendations from the NCCN [20] or soon to be updated ELN [21], or local, which take available resources into consideration, should be consulted.

I want to start with my impression of the reasons for delayed or missed referral for allografting. I expect that the most common is that the role of allografting for CML has not been on the radar for years or decades. Unlike autografting for myeloma or allografting for acute leukemia, which are now built into management algorithms, allografting for CML is not. This may be due to CML education, whether academically based or marketing driven, that primarily deals with TKIs and competes with educational programs for other diseases that are more common. The second reason would most likely be due to a concern about the toxicity of an allograft. Much has changed over the decades, and transplants are safer—not completely safe, but safer than they were decades ago. But then TKI therapy is not completely safe [22]. The third may very well be the wrong impression of who is eligible for a transplant—age, disease status, donor availability, co-morbidities. Unless someone is in a center where allografts are being done for any disease, there may exist unknowns or old information, and a lot has changed. The fourth is more concerning. The attitude that this is something to consider when there is nothing else available is ancient history, and this will be discussed below. The last could be due to a reimbursement or transplant availability issue, which is now outside the bounds of a medical decision.

The reasons for refusal to transplant vary but usually are based on not meeting the eligibility criteria for a “standard” transplant. Disease may have progressed, for example, uncontrolled blast crisis, the rare case now where there is no donor identified, poor co-morbid health, patient unwilling to consent to the transplant or appropriate follow-up. Some centers may offer “experimental” or “study” transplants which will consider patients otherwise ineligible.

Why is delaying an allograft risky for either a higher risk of failure of the transplant or even for being able to get a transplant? There are a number of criteria on this list. They include the disease now not having a likely chance of benefiting or a high risk of relapse, worsening candidate health makes the risk of treatment-related mortality or morbidity higher, the donor no longer being available because of health reasons or concerns about their own risks or donor disappearance from a registry, either temporarily or permanently, waiting lists at some centers, and changes in reimbursement coverage. Once eligible, always eligible is not a reality. There is a quality window here.

How to proceed then with getting the appropriate patient to a timely allograft? There are a number of branches in this decision road, and I will try to identify my approach. The first is simple. Is this patient a transplant candidate? In deciding this, the patient has exhausted all other therapies that can yield a durable response, not just all other available therapies. In the absence of resistance directed by specific mutations that might respond to another TKI, or intolerance that may be specific drug related, now is the time. Flipping between second or third generation drugs for the sake of allograft avoidance or delay puts the patient at risk. If the need for an allograft is inevitable, then why wait? If there is still insistence on trying another drug, then rare positive results should be available in 2–3 months, and if they are not obvious, move on.

A delay in a patient who may have another medical condition that can be corrected to reduce allograft risk could be considered. An example might be cardiac stent placement. The same might be true for the best donor, so long as the delay does not affect the patient.

Start the process. Above all, if unsure, a referral to a transplant program is prudent. Initiation of family member identification and HLA-typing, unrelated donor search if it is done outside of the transplant center, and referral to other services for patient “buffing” should be done sooner rather than later.

Allografts after TKI therapy are still very effective if done on time. Logic should tell us, that at best a delay will not improve outcome and in fact may yield an inferior result. So why wait? In the words of George Bernard Shaw—“Nothing is worth doing unless the consequences may be serious.” A missed successful transplant opportunity is what I would call serious.

观察谷仓门打开时间CML干细胞同种异体移植
你做决定的时机和你做的决定一样重要。在过去25年左右的时间里,慢性粒细胞白血病的治疗已经发生了变化,把这种曾经致命的疾病变成了一种可以治愈或至少可以控制的疾病。常规使用酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKI)治疗,与年龄匹配的对照组相比,预期寿命接近正常,尽管生活质量(QOL)可能不正常[3,4]。与第一代药物相比,生存率并没有真正提高,但新药已经帮助解决了耐药性和不耐受问题,使得使用更积极的选择的频率大大降低。在tki之前的时代,除了干扰素治疗,唯一可能的“治愈”选择是异体骨髓移植,现在是干细胞移植[5,6]。然而,如果患者年轻,通常在40岁以下,有一个匹配的兄弟姐妹,健康状况良好,接近移植项目,并且有这个昂贵的手术的报销,这是一个现实。在西方世界,CML诊断的中位年龄在60岁左右,或者在发展中国家,在技术上不可行或没有报销的情况下,可以看到大多数患者只能接受姑息治疗。如果这是所有可用的,同种异体移植的重大发展已经发生,这改变了景观。患者现在可以移植到他们的第八个十年,合并症通常可以得到控制,降低强度调节的急性毒性更小,更好的移植物抗宿主病(GVHD)预防和治疗是可用的,成本降低了,更多的中心可用。但最重要的是,随着更大的供体库的可用性——替代相关供体、非相关供体登记和单倍体相同供体——异体移植可以为更多的人提供[7,8]。相反的是……那又怎样。随着伊马替尼和后续tki的出现,同种异体移植的需求几乎消失,随之而来的是同种异体移植仍然存在,并且可能在少数情况下是合适的记忆。与此同时,TKI发展的进步已经产生了更新的药物,这些药物在许多情况下可以处理早期药物的耐药或不耐受,对于一些有合并症的患者来说,可能更安全,没有不良事件或副作用的问题[9,10]。这减少了但并没有消除考虑同种异体移植的需要。另一方面,更频繁的慢性问题有时会被更严重的问题所取代,或者在使用最新药物的情况下,如果有的话,会出现未知的长期问题。风险/收益比变得很重要,在经过仔细考虑、讨论和同意后,对于更严重的CML,使用可能“风险更高”的药物是合理的。这篇评论将不涉及同种异体移植的一般适应症。我想用“时机”这个词来反映的不是疾病状态,而是一旦决定明确了,什么时候进行移植。适应症已经得到了很好的审查[5,6],除了少数新药物可以克服耐药性或不耐受的病例外,适应症保持不变。诸如晚期疾病、克隆进展或疾病进展、不受控制的多药耐药或持续的血液学毒性等问题仍然是考虑它的论据。我在这里想考虑的是同种异体移植的时机,或者套用童谣中的金发姑娘的话——不要太早,也不要太晚,而是刚刚好!从历史上看,在tki之前,同种异体移植在诊断后早期,在1至2年内,是获得最佳结果的最佳选择。即使在干扰素治疗失败后移植也是非常成功的。移植时间较晚或疾病进展较晚,结果较差。有人担心,在进行同种异体移植之前尝试TKI治疗会导致延迟,从而失去早期的益处。在大多数情况下,如果移植是在慢性期进行的,即使使用第二代药物,这也不是问题[15-17]。即使扩大供体选择和移植方法,这也被证明是正确的[18,19]。传统上,慢性粒细胞白血病的治疗分为两组:传统的慢性粒细胞白血病治疗者和移植者。在极少数情况下,一个人可以同时做这两件事,当同种异体移植进入图片时,这可能是一个优势。在当今时代,前者是一个更大的群体,可能包括合格的血液学家、肿瘤学家和通才。根据CML实践的规模,这需要不同程度的专业知识、舒适度和视角。例如,一个实践可能有一个巨大的良性成分,一个实体肿瘤成分,和一个由许多疾病组成的较小的恶性血液学成分,CML是不常见的。 鉴于如此多的CML患者没有重大问题,可以理解的是,这种罕见疾病的一些复杂性对这一群体来说可能并不明显。移植者提出的担忧通常是基于为什么转诊这么晚,疾病或一般健康明显恶化。应参考NCCN[20]或即将更新的ELN[21]或本地的建议,这些建议考虑了可用资源。我想从我对异体移植延迟或错过转诊原因的印象开始。我认为最常见的是同种异体移植治疗CML的作用已经几年或几十年没有出现在雷达上了。与骨髓瘤的自体移植或急性白血病的同种异体移植不同,同种异体移植治疗CML则不是。这可能是由于CML教育,无论是基于学术还是市场驱动,主要针对tki,并与其他更常见疾病的教育计划竞争。第二个原因很可能是由于对同种异体移植物毒性的担忧。几十年来,很多事情都发生了变化,移植手术更安全了——虽然不是完全安全,但比几十年前更安全了。但是TKI疗法并不是完全安全的。第三个很可能是对谁有资格进行移植的错误印象——年龄、疾病状况、供体可用性、合并症。除非有人在同种异体移植治疗任何疾病的中心,否则可能存在未知或旧信息,而且很多已经改变了。第四点更令人担忧。当没有其他可用的东西时,这种态度是要考虑的,这是古老的历史,这将在下面讨论。最后一个可能是由于报销或移植可用性问题,这现在已经超出了医疗决定的范围。拒绝移植的原因各不相同,但通常是基于不符合“标准”移植的资格标准。疾病可能已经进展,例如,不受控制的细胞危象,目前没有确定供体的罕见病例,合并症健康状况不佳,患者不愿同意移植或进行适当的随访。一些中心可能会提供“实验性”或“研究性”的移植,这些移植会认为患者不符合其他条件。为什么推迟同种异体移植会增加移植失败的风险,甚至会降低移植成功率?这个列表中有很多标准。这些因素包括疾病现在不太可能受益或复发的风险很高,候选人健康状况恶化使与治疗相关的死亡率或发病率的风险更高,由于健康原因或对自身风险的担忧而不再可用的捐赠者或捐赠者暂时或永久地从登记处消失,一些中心的等待名单,以及报销范围的变化。一旦合格,永远合格是不现实的。这里有个优质橱窗。如何让合适的病人及时接受同种异体移植?在这条决策道路上有许多分支,我将尝试确定我的方法。第一个很简单。这个病人适合移植吗?在做出这个决定时,患者已经用尽了所有其他能产生持久反应的治疗方法,而不仅仅是所有其他可用的治疗方法。由于没有可能对另一种TKI产生反应的特定突变引起的耐药性,或者可能与特定药物相关的不耐受,现在是时候了。为了避免或延迟同种异体移植而在第二代或第三代药物之间切换会使患者处于危险之中。如果同种异体移植是不可避免的,那为什么还要等待呢?如果仍然坚持尝试另一种药物,那么罕见的阳性结果应该在2-3个月内出现,如果不明显,继续前进。如果患者有其他疾病可以纠正以降低同种异体移植风险,则可以考虑延迟手术。心脏支架置入就是一个例子。对于最好的捐赠者来说,只要延迟不影响患者,情况可能也是如此。启动流程。最重要的是,如果不确定,转介到移植项目是谨慎的。家庭成员鉴定和hla分型的开始、非亲属供体搜索(如果是在移植中心以外进行的)以及转介到其他服务机构进行患者“治疗”,应尽早进行。同种异体移植在TKI治疗后,如果及时进行,仍然是非常有效的。逻辑应该告诉我们,拖延充其量不会改善结果,实际上可能会产生较差的结果。那么,为什么还要等待呢?用萧伯纳的话来说:“任何事情都不值得做,除非后果可能很严重。”错过一次成功的移植机会是很严重的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
363
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Hematology offers extensive coverage of experimental and clinical aspects of blood diseases in humans and animal models. The journal publishes original contributions in both non-malignant and malignant hematological diseases, encompassing clinical and basic studies in areas such as hemostasis, thrombosis, immunology, blood banking, and stem cell biology. Clinical translational reports highlighting innovative therapeutic approaches for the diagnosis and treatment of hematological diseases are actively encouraged.The American Journal of Hematology features regular original laboratory and clinical research articles, brief research reports, critical reviews, images in hematology, as well as letters and correspondence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信