4.7 Article

Assessment and prognostic value of the European LeukemiaNet criteria for clinicohematologic response, resistance, and intolerance to hydroxyurea in polycythemia vera

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 119, Issue 6, Pages 1363-1369

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-10-387787

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Health and grant Asociacion Espanola Contra el Cancer Catalunya [Retics RD06/0020/004, EC10-136, FIS PI10/01 807, PI10/00 236, PS09/02 324]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Criteria of response and definition of resistance and intolerance to hydroxyurea (HU) in polycythemia vera (PV) were proposed by the European LeukemiaNet (ELN). Such criteria were evaluated in 261 PV patients (median follow-up, 7.2 years) treated with HU for a median of 4.4 years. Complete response, partial response, and no response were observed in 24%, 66%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Achieving ELN response (complete or partial) or hematocrit response did not result in better survival or less thrombosis and bleeding. On the contrary, having no response in leukocyte count was associated with higher risk of death (HR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-5.4%; P = .007), whereas lack of response in platelet count involved a higher risk of thrombosis and bleeding. Resistance and intolerance to HU was registered in 11% and 13% of patients, respectively. Resistance to HU was associated with higher risk of death (HR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.7%-11.9%; P <.001) and transformation (HR, 6.8; 95% CI, 3.0%-15.4%; P <.001). In summary, fulfilling the ELN definition for response to HU was not associated with a benefit in the clinical outcome in PV, whereas response in platelet and white blood cell counts were predictive of less thrombohemorrhagic complications and better prognosis, respectively. Resistance to HU was an adverse prognostic factor. (Blood. 2012; 119(6): 1363-1369)

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