4.6 Article

Clinical evaluation of the European LeukaemiaNet criteria for clinicohaematological response and resistance/intolerance to hydroxycarbamide in essential thrombocythaemia

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 152, Issue 1, Pages 81-88

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08430.x

Keywords

hydroxycarbamide; essential thrombocythaemia; response criteria; resistance; intolerance

Categories

Funding

  1. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Spanish Ministry of Health [PS09/02324, EC07/90791]
  2. Conselleria de Sanitat, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain [IMPULSA/2010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Standardized criteria of response to treatment and a unified definition of resistance/intolerance to hydroxycarbamide (HC) in essential thrombocythaemia (ET) have been proposed by the European LeukaemiaNet (ELN). We have retrospectively evaluated such criteria in 166 ET patients treated with HC for a median of 4 center dot 5 years. Overall, 134 patients achieved a complete clinicohaematological response (CR) and 25 a partial response. Thirty-three patients met at least one of the ELN criteria defining resistance (n = 15) or intolerance (n = 21) to HC. Fifteen cases developed anaemia with thrombocytosis, which was associated with a high incidence of myelofibrosis and death from any cause. Other definitions of resistance were less useful. Factors determining the thrombotic risk were a history of prior thrombosis and a baseline leucocyte count > 10 x 109/l. Of note, patients achieving a CR, even if sustained during the entire follow-up, did not benefit from a lower incidence of thrombosis or an improved survival. In conclusion, most ET patients respond to HC, but the achievement of response, as defined by the ELN, does not correlate with the patients' outcome. The best discriminating ELN criterion of resistance to HC was the detection of anaemia, which also identified a subgroup of patients with poor prognosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available