4.3 Article

Relation between chelation and clinical outcomes in lower-risk patients with patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: Registry analysis at 5 years

期刊

LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 88-95

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2017.01.033

关键词

Iron chelation; Iron overload; Myelodysplastic syndromes

资金

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prospective data are needed to ascertain the impact of iron chelation therapy in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. The present 5-year prospective registry analysis was conducted to compare clinical outcomes between chelated and nonchelated patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes and transfusional iron overload. In an interim analysis at 24 months, we previously reported that chelation therapy was associated with longer median overall survival and a tendency toward longer leukemia-free survival and fewer cardiac events. In the present report, we detail findings from the final analysis at 5 years. We confirm, at the conclusion of this 5-year, prospective, non-interventional study, that overall survival was significantly longer in patients who received iron chelation therapy vs those who did not. Causes of death in the overall population were predominantly myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia followed by cardiac disease. Time to progression to acute myeloid leukemia was also significantly longer in patients receiving chelation therapy, and significantly fewer patients progressed to leukemia vs those not receiving chelation therapy. Limitations of the study include a potential for clinical bias, as patients with longer predicted survival may have been chosen for chelation therapy, the differences present in concomitant conditions at baseline, and the possibility that some high-risk patients were not identified due to limited cytogenetic classification. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. 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

4.3
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