4.7 Article

Leukocytosis and risk stratification assessment in essential thrombocythemia

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 16, Pages 2732-2736

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.3569

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Funding Source: Custom

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Established risk factors for thrombosis in essential thrombocythemia ( ET) include age and previous vascular events. We aimed to refine this risk stratification by adding baseline leukocytosis. Patients and Methods We enrolled 657 patients with ET followed for a median of 4.5 years who developed 72 major thrombosis. Cox proportional hazard model was performed to analyze the thrombotic risk and to discriminate ET patients with or without thrombosis, multivariable C statistic index was used. We searched for leukocytes cutoff with the best sensitivity and specificity by a receiver operating characteristic curve. Results Results confirmed that age and prior events are independent risk factors for thrombosis and showed a gradient between baseline leukocytosis and thrombosis. On the contrary, no significant association was found either for JAK2(V617F) allele burden and for other laboratory parameters, including platelet number. In the model with conventional risk factors alone, C statistic ratio for total thrombosis was 0.63 and when leukocytosis was added, the change was small ( C = 0.67). In contrast, in younger and asymptomatic patients ( low-risk category), C statistic value indicated an high risk for thrombosis in patients with leukocytosis, similar to that calculated in conventionally defined high-risk group ( C = 0.65). The best leukocyte cutoff values for predicting the events was found to be 9.4 ( X 10(9)/L). Conclusion We suggest to include baseline leukocytosis in the risk stratification of ET patients enrolled in clinical trials.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available