4.2 Article

Diagnosis according to World Health Organization determines the long-term prognosis in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms treated with anagrelide: Results of a prospective long-term follow-up

Journal

HEMATOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 8-13

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/1607845412Y.0000000023

Keywords

Myeloproliferative neoplasm; Anagrelide; Primary myelofibrosis; Essential thrombocythemia; Polycythemia vera

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: During long term follow-up of a cohort of patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) a higher than expected incidence of myelofibrosis (MF) was noted. In order to test if the explanation could be found in the diagnostic criteria a re-evaluation of diagnosis using the 2008 WHO diagnostic criteria for ET and MF was performed. Methods: This prospective study of 60 patients with ET and PV was set up in 1998 to evaluate the long-term efficacy and tolerability of anagrelide treatment. Bone marrow trephine biopsies were requested from study start, after 2 and 7 years of follow-up. A blinded re-evaluation of the bone marrow trephines was performed. The 2008 WHO bone marrow criteria were used for diagnosis and fibrosis grading. Results: Of 40 patients with an initial diagnosis of ET, 21 were confirmed as 'true ET' whereas 17 were reclassified as primary myelofibrosis (PMF) ( 12 PMF-0, 3 PMF-1, 2 PMF-2) and 2 as myeloproliferative neoplasms of uncertain origin. After 7 years of follow-up, 19 of 21 patients with 'true ET' were alive, none had transformed to MF, leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome. In contrast, 4/17 patients reclassified as PMF had died, two patients transformed to myelodysplastic syndrome and 7 patients progressed to overt MF. Discussion: We conclude that a blinded re-evaluation of bone marrow trephines from study start and after 7 years of follow-up using 2008 World Health Organization criteria was able to differentiate between true ET and PMF with a marked difference in follow-up outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available