4.7 Article

Development and validation of an International Prognostic Score of thrombosis in World Health Organization-essential thrombocythemia (IPSET-thrombosis)

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 120, Issue 26, Pages 5128-5133

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-07-444067

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (Milan, Italy) [1005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate prediction of thrombosis in essential thrombocythemia (ET) provides the platform for prospective studies exploring preventive measures. Current risk stratification for thrombosis in ET is 2-tiered and considers low-and high-risk categories based on the respective absence or presence of either age > 60 years or history of thrombosis. In an international study of 891 patients with World Health Organization (WHO)-defined ET, we identified additional independent risk factors including cardiovascular risk factors and JAK2V617F. Accordingly, we assigned risk scores based on multivariable analysis-derived hazard ratios (HRs) to age > 60 years (HR = 1.5; 1 point), thrombosis history (HR = 1.9; 2 points), cardiovascular risk factors (HR = 1.6; 1 point), and JAK2V617F (HR = 2.0; 2 points) and subsequently devised a 3-tiered prognostic model (low-risk = < 2 points; intermediate-risk = 2 points; and high-risk = > 2 points) using a training set of 535 patients and validated the results in the remaining cohort (n = 356; internal validation set) and in an external validation set (n = 329). Considering all 3 cohorts (n = 1220), the 3-tiered new prognostic model (low-risk n = 474 vs intermediate-risk n = 471 vs high-risk n = 275), with a respective thrombosis risk of 1.03% of patients/y versus 2.35% of patients/y versus 3.56% of patients/y, outperformed the 2-tiered (low-risk 0.95% of patients/y vs high-risk 2.86% of patients/y) conventional risk stratification in predicting future vascular events. (Blood. 2012; 120(26): 5128-5133)

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