Validation of WHO classification-based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS) for myelodysplastic syndromes and comparison with the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). A study of the International Working Group for Prognosis in Myelodysplasia (IWG-PM)
Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie, Anglie Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem, validační studie
PubMed
25721895
DOI
10.1038/leu.2015.55
PII: leu201555
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- cytogenetické vyšetření MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- hodnocení rizik MeSH
- kombinovaná terapie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mezinárodní spolupráce MeSH
- míra přežití MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- myelodysplastické syndromy klasifikace diagnóza mortalita terapie MeSH
- následné studie MeSH
- prognóza MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- staging nádorů MeSH
- Světová zdravotnická organizace * MeSH
- výzkumný projekt MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- validační studie MeSH
A risk-adapted treatment strategy is mandatory for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). We refined the World Health Organization (WHO)-classification-based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS) by determining the impact of the newer clinical and cytogenetic features, and we compared its prognostic power to that of the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). A population of 5326 untreated MDS was considered. We analyzed single WPSS parameters and confirmed that the WHO classification and severe anemia provide important prognostic information in MDS. A strong correlation was found between the WPSS including the new cytogenetic risk stratification and WPSS adopting original criteria. We then compared WPSS with the IPSS-R prognostic system. A highly significant correlation was found between the WPSS and IPSS-R risk classifications. Discrepancies did occur among lower-risk patients in whom the number of dysplastic hematopoietic lineages as assessed by morphology did not reflect the severity of peripheral blood cytopenias and/or increased marrow blast count. Moreover, severe anemia has higher prognostic weight in the WPSS versus IPSS-R model. Overall, both systems well represent the prognostic risk of MDS patients defined by WHO morphologic criteria. This study provides relevant in formation for the implementation of risk-adapted strategies in MDS.
Cleveland Clinic Cleveland OH USA
Department of Hematology VU University Medical Center Amsterdam The Netherlands
Division of Hematology Stanford University Cancer Center Stanford CA USA
Elisabethinen Hospital Linz Austria
Federal University of Ceara Fortaleza Brazil
Fondazione Italiana Sindromi Mielodisplastiche c o SS Antonio e Biagio Hospital Alessandria Italy
Georg August Universität Göttingen Germany
Hanusch Hospital and L Boltzmann Cluster Oncology Vienna Austria
Hanusch Hospital Boltzmann Institute for Leukemia Research Vienna Austria
Heinrich Heine University Hospital Düsseldorf Germany
Hôpital Avicenne Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris University Paris XIII Bobigny France
Hôpital Cochin AP HP University of Paris 5 Paris France
Hospital Universitario La Fe Valencia Spain
Hospital Universitario Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Spain
Institut de Recerca contra la Leucèmia Josep Carreras Barcelona Spain
Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion Praha Czech Republic
James P Wilmot Cancer Institute University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester NY USA
Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Nagasaki Japan
Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute Chantilly VA USA
St James's University Hospital Leeds UK
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA
University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Research Center Chicago IL USA
Zobrazit více v PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 1;29(16):2240-6 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Dec 1;24(34):5358-65 PubMed
Haematologica. 2006 Dec;91(12):1596-604 PubMed
Blood. 2014 Apr 10;123(15):2333-42 PubMed
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 30;364(26):2496-506 PubMed
Blood. 2007 Dec 15;110(13):4385-95 PubMed
Blood. 2014 Aug 28;124(9):1513-21 PubMed
Blood. 2013 Nov 21;122(22):3616-27; quiz 3699 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul 20;31(21):2671-7 PubMed
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Dec;50(18):3198-205 PubMed
Am J Hematol. 2008 Oct;83(10):765-70 PubMed
Blood. 2013 Oct 24;122(17):2943-64 PubMed
Haematologica. 2011 Mar;96(3):441-9 PubMed
Ann Oncol. 2010 Jan;21(1):114-9 PubMed
Blood. 2009 Jul 30;114(5):937-51 PubMed
Blood. 2013 Dec 12;122(25):4021-34 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 20;29(15):1963-70 PubMed
Nature. 2011 Sep 11;478(7367):64-9 PubMed
Haematologica. 2013 Apr;98(4):568-75 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 20;23(30):7594-603 PubMed
N Engl J Med. 2005 Feb 10;352(6):536-8 PubMed
Haematologica. 2011 Oct;96(10):1433-40 PubMed
Leukemia. 2012 Jul;26(7):1730-41 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 10;30(8):820-9 PubMed
Leukemia. 2014 Sep;28(9):1793-8 PubMed
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2008 Oct;6(9):927-34 PubMed
Nat Commun. 2015 Jan 09;6:5901 PubMed
Lancet. 2014 Jun 28;383(9936):2239-52 PubMed
Blood. 2012 Aug 16;120(7):1398-408 PubMed
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Jul;11(7):838-74 PubMed
Leukemia. 2014 Feb;28(2):241-7 PubMed
Blood. 2012 Sep 20;120(12):2454-65 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Feb 10;27(5):754-62 PubMed
Blood. 1997 Mar 15;89(6):2079-88 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 10;25(23):3503-10 PubMed
N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 13;365(15):1384-95 PubMed
Leuk Res. 2014 Jan;38(1):57-64 PubMed
Br J Haematol. 2014 Oct;167(1):100-9 PubMed
Leukemia. 2015 Jan;29(1):66-75 PubMed
Semin Oncol. 2011 Oct;38(5):627-34 PubMed
Br J Haematol. 2014 Feb;164(4):503-25 PubMed
Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2008;:166-75 PubMed