4.6 Article

Validation of the revised international prognostic scoring system (IPSS-R) in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a report from the prospective European LeukaemiaNet MDS (EUMDS) registry

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 170, 期 3, 页码 372-383

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.13450

关键词

lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes; International Prognostic Scoring System; revised International Prognostic Scoring System; co-morbidity score; quality of life score

资金

  1. Novartis Pharmacy B.V. Europe
  2. Verein Senioren-Krebshilfe, Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Baseline characteristics, disease-management and outcome of 1000 lower-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients within the European LeukaemiaNet MDS (EUMDS) Registry are described in conjunction with the validation of the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). The EUMDS registry confirmed established prognostic factors, such as age, gender and World Health Organization 2001 classification. Low quality of life (EQ-5D visual analogue scale score) was significantly associated with reduced survival. A high co-morbidity index predicted poor outcome in univariate analyses. The IPSS-R identified a large group of 247 patients with Low (43%) and Very low (23%) risk score within the IPSS intermediate-1 patients. The IPSS-R also identified 32 High or Very high risk patients within the IPSS intermediate-1 patients. IPSS-R was superior to the IPSS for predicting both disease progression and survival. Seventy percent of patients received MDS-specific treatment or supportive care, including red blood cell transfusions (51%), haematopoietic growth factors (58%) and iron chelation therapy (8%), within 2years of diagnosis; while 30% of the patients only required active monitoring. The IPSS-R proved its utility as a more refined risk stratification tool for the identification of patients with a very good or poor prognosis and in this lower-risk MDS population.

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

4.6
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