4.4 Article

Epidemiological study and comparison of MD Anderson Cancer Center and GIMENA. Adult Hematological Illness in patients with B-chronic lymphocytic leukemia

期刊

MEDICINA CLINICA
卷 133, 期 5, 页码 161-166

出版社

EDICIONES DOYMA S A
DOI: 10.1016/j.medcli.2008.09.046

关键词

Epidemiology; Prognosis; B-Chronic limphocytic leukemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objective: The clinical course of B-chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL) patients is highly heterogeneous and the prognosis of these patients is difficult to predict. In this study, we analysed two new prognostic indexes proposed by the MDACC and GIMEMA group in a random population of B-CCL patients. Patients and methods: A follow up study of a cohort of patients was carried out. 265 B-CLL patients diagnosed in the Area Sanitaria de Gijon during 10 years (1997-2007) were analysed in this study. The overall Survival of the patients was analysed by the Rai and Binet staging systems and the prognostic indexes proposed by the MDACC and GIMEMA group. Results: The crude rate was 8.99 per 100.000 populations for year and the adjusted-age rate was 3.47 per 100.000 populations for year. The distribution of patients based on the MDACC index was: 31.4% had low risk, 62% had intermediate risk and 6.6% had high risk. The percentage of 5- and 10-years survival probabilities were 87% and 73% for low risk, 75% and 49% for intermediate risk and 29% and 16% of high risk. The GIMEMA index was unable to predict the overall survival in our patients. Conclusions: The rates of B-CLL are higher in our population than previously described, which is probably caused by an earlier diagnosis. Our results indicate that the MDACC prognostic index predicted the overall survival and the prognosis of a random population of patients better than the classical staging systems. The simplicity and utility of this prognostic index may help clinicians in clinical decision and therapeutical management. (C) 2008 Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据