4.1 Article

Real-world data of AML in Japan: results of JALSG clinical observational study-11 (JALSG-CS-11)

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12185-023-03677-w

关键词

Acute myeloid leukemia; Myelodysplastic syndromes; Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia; Survival; Epidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This report presents the results of a multicenter observational study on acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in Japan. The study registered 3728 AML patients, with 42% of them being younger than 65 years old and the male-to-female ratio being 1.57:1. The median follow-up time was 1807 days, and the estimated 5-year overall survival rate for AML patients was 31.1%. The study also found that trial-enrolled patients had a higher overall survival rate compared to non-enrolled patients, and women had a higher overall survival rate than men.
This report covers acute myeloid leukemia (AML) results from a multicenter, prospective observational study of AML, myelodysplastic syndromes, and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia in Japan. From August 2011 to January 2016, 3728 AML patients were registered. Among them, 42% were younger than 65, and the male-to-female ratio was 1.57:1. With a median follow-up time of 1807 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1732-1844 days), the estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) rate in AML patients (n = 3707) was 31.1% (95% CI: 29.5-32.8%). Trial-enrolled patients had a 1.7-fold higher OS rate than non-enrolled patients (5-year OS, 58.9% [95% CI: 54.5-63.1%] vs 35.5% [33.3-37.8%], p < 0.0001). Women had a higher OS rate than men (5-year OS, 34% [95% CI; 31.4-36.7%] vs 27.7% [25.7-29.7%], p < 0.0001). The OS rate was lower in patients aged 40 and older than those under 40, and even lower in those over 65 (5-year OS for ages < 40, 40-64, 65-74, >= 75: 74.5% [95% CI; 69.3-79.0%] vs 47.5% [44.4-50.6%] vs 19.3% [16.8-22.0%] vs 7.3% [5.5-9.4%], respectively). This is the first paper to present large-scale data on survival and clinical characteristics in Japanese AML patients.

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

4.1
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