4.6 Article

A validated decision model for treating the anaemia of myelodysplastic syndromes with erythropoietin plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor:: significant effects on quality of life

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 120, 期 6, 页码 1037-1046

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04153.x

关键词

anaemia; erythropoietin; granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; myelodysplasia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have published previously a prototype of a decision model for anaemic patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), in which transfusion need and serum erythropoietin (S-Epo) were used to define three groups with different probabilities of erythroid response to treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) + Epo. S-Epo less than or equal to 500 U/l and a transfusion need of < 2 units/month predicted a high probability of response to treatment, S-Epo > 500 U/l and greater than or equal to 2 units/month for a poor response, whereas the presence of only one negative prognostic marker predicted an intermediate response. A total of 53 patients from a prospective study were included in our evaluation sample. Patients with good or intermediate probability of response were treated with G-CSF + Epo. The overall response rate was 42% with 28.3% achieving a complete and 13.2% a partial response to treatment. The response rates were 61% and 14% in the good and intermediate predictive groups respectively. The model retained a significant predictive value in the evaluation sample (P < 0.001). Median duration of response was 23 months. Scores for global health and quality of life (QOL) were significantly lower in MDS patients than in a reference population, and fatigue and dyspnoea was significantly more prominent. Global QOL improved in patients responding to treatment (P = 0.01). The validated decision model defined a subgroup of patients with a response rate of 61% (95% confidence interval 48-74%) to treatment with G-CSF + Epo. The majority of these patients have shown complete and durable responses.

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