4.0 Article

Myelofibrosis patients in Belgium: disease characteristics

期刊

ACTA CLINICA BELGICA
卷 70, 期 2, 页码 105-111

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/2295333714Y.0000000097

关键词

Myelofibrosis; Prevalence; Characteristics; Management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To date, only a small number of epidemiological studies on myelofibrosis have been performed. The current study aimed to characterize the myelofibrosis patient population in Belgium according to pre-defined disease parameters (diagnosis, risk categories, hemoglobin,10 g/dl, spleen size, constitutional symptoms, platelet count, myeloblast count), with a view to obtaining a deeper understanding of the proportion of patients that may benefit from the novel myelofibrosis therapeutic strategies. Methods: A survey was used to collect data on prevalence and disease parameters on all myelofibrosis patients seen at each of 18 participating hematologic centers in 2011. Aggregated data from all centers were used for analysis. Analyses were descriptive and quantitative. Results: A total of 250 patients with myelofibrosis were captured; of these, 136 (54%) were male and 153 (61%) were over 65 years old. One hundred sixty-five (66%) of myelofibrosis patients had primary myelofibrosis and 85 (34%) had secondary myelofibrosis. One hundred ninety-three myelofibrosis patients (77%) had a palpable spleen. About a third of patients (34%) suffered from constitutional symptoms. Two hundred twenty-two (89%) myelofibrosis patients had platelet count >= 50 000/mu l and 201 (80%) had platelet count >= 100 000/mu l. Of 250 patients, 85 (34%) had a myeloblast count similar to 1%. Six (2%) patients had undergone a splenectomy. Thirteen (5.2%) patients had undergone radiotherapy for splenomegaly. Conclusions: The results of this survey provide insight into the characteristics of the Belgian myelofibrosis population. They also suggest that a large proportion of these patients could stand to benefit from the therapies currently under development.

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

4.0
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