Prognostic Factors for Overall Survival In Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients: A Multicentric Cohort Study by the Italian CML GIMEMA Network
Rattachement africain : it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
An observational prospective study was conducted by the CML Italian network to analyze the role of baseline patient characteristics and first line treatments on overall survival and CML-related mortality in 1206 newly diagnosed CML patients, 608 treated with imatinib (IMA) and 598 with 2nd generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (2GTKI). IMA-treated patients were much older (median age 69 years, IQR 58-77) than the 2GTKI group (52, IQR 41-63) and had more comorbidities. Estimated 4-year overall survival of the entire cohort was 89% (95%CI 85.9-91.4). Overall, 73 patients (6.1%) died: 17 (2.8%) in the 2GTKI vs 56 (9.2%) in the IMA cohort (adjusted HR=0.50; 95% CI=0.26-0.94), but no differences were detected for CML-related mortality (10 (1.7%) vs 11 (1.8%) in the 2GTKIs vs IMA cohort (sHR=1.61; 0.52-4.96). The ELTS score was associated to CML mortality (high risk vs low, HR=9.67; 95%CI 2.94-31.74; p<0.001), while age (per year, HR=1.03; 95%CI 1.00-1.06; p=0.064), CCI (4-5 vs 2, HR=5.22; 95%CI 2.56-10.65; p<0.001), ELTS score (high risk vs low, HR=3.11; 95%CI 1.52-6.35, p=0.002) and 2GTKI vs IMA (HR=0.26; 95%CI 0.10-0.65, p=0.004) were associated to an increased risk of non-related CML mortality. The ELTS score showed a better discriminant ability than the Sokal score in all comparisons.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Prognostic Factors for Overall Survival In Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients: A Multicentric Cohort Study by the Italian CML GIMEMA Network
- Date Crossref
- 26/08/2021
- Éditeur
- Frontiers Media SA
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.