首页> 外文期刊>European Journal of Haematology >Is International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) still standard in predicting prognosis in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome? External validation of the WHO Classification-Based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS) and comparison with IPSS.
【24h】

Is International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) still standard in predicting prognosis in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome? External validation of the WHO Classification-Based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS) and comparison with IPSS.

机译:国际预后评分系统(IPSS)是否仍是预测骨髓增生异常综合症患者预后的标准方法?世卫组织基于分类的预后评分系统(WPSS)的外部验证,并与IPSS进行比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to evaluate the prognostic value of the WHO Classification-Based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS) and to compare it with that of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 149 patients de novo diagnosed as having myelodysplastic syndrome between December 1994 and February 2007, were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: WPSS presented an excellent method for risk-stratifying patients into five subgroups, with different risks of death and leukaemic evolution. On univariate analysis, three components of WPSS - cytogenetic risk, WHO category and transfusion dependency - had good correlations with overall survival (OS) and time to leukaemic evolution (TTL). However, one component of IPSS - number of peripheral cytopenias - did not correlate with OS or TTL. WPSS could distinguish the truly low-risk patients (very low) who had an excellent long-term survival with rare leukaemic evolution, while IPSS could not. These patients should be managedwith clinical observation and delayed treatment strategies. Furthermore, on multivariate analysis for OS, WPSS was found to be an independent prognostic factor for survival along with age [P = 0.04; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.85] and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (P = 0.002; HR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.41-4.31). On the other hand, the prognostic significance of IPSS was not confirmed. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the WPSS might be a more powerful predictor of prognosis than IPSS and that independent validation of several other, larger data sets should be necessary.
机译:背景:本研究旨在评估基于WHO分类的预后评分系统(WPSS)的预后价值,并将其与国际预后评分系统(IPSS)进行比较。患者与方法:回顾性分析了1994年12月至2007年2月间149例新诊断为骨髓增生异常综合征的患者。结果:WPSS提供了一种极好的方法,可将患者分为五个亚组,分别具有不同的死亡和白血病进化风险。在单变量分析中,WPSS的三个组成部分-细胞遗传学风险,WHO类别和输血依赖性-与总生存期(OS)和白细胞生成时间(TTL)具有良好的相关性。但是,IPSS的一个组成部分-外周血细胞减少症的数量-与OS或TTL不相关。 WPSS可以区分出真正的低风险患者(极低),他们具有出色的长期生存率和罕见的白血病进展,而IPSS则不能。这些患者应通过临床观察和延迟治疗策略进行治疗。此外,在OS的多变量分析中,发现WPSS是随年龄增长而生存的独立预后因素[P = 0.04;危险比(HR)= 1.71; 95%置信区间(CI)1.02-2.85]和乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)(P = 0.002; HR = 2.47; 95%CI 1.41-4.31)。另一方面,IPSS的预后意义尚未得到证实。结论:这些结果表明,与IPSS相比,WPSS可能是更有效的预后指标,因此有必要对其他几个更大的数据集进行独立验证。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号