Clinicopathological Prognostic Model for Survival in Adult Patients With Secondary Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis
Rattachement africain : th, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: Data on bone marrow (BM) findings in secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH) and their association with overall survival (OS) are limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop a prognostic model incorporating BM findings and clinico-laboratory factors affecting OS. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 50 adults with sHLH and developed a clinicopathological prognostic model based on survival-associated factors. RESULTS: Most patients demonstrated normocellular BM (46.3%) and mild hemophagocytic activity (44.2%). Factors associated with survival in multivariable analyses (MVA) were age above 70 years (hazard ratio [HR] 3.89, p = 0.016), infection-related (HR 4.62, p = 0.006), hemoglobin < 7 g/dL (HR 5.21, p < 0.001), and hypocellular marrow (HR 3.07, p = 0.04). A clinicopathological HLH risk model assigned 1 point to each MVA-identified survival factor, categorizing patients into low- (score 0-1), intermediate- (score 2-3), and high-risk (score 4) groups. The 6-month OS from bootstrapping internal validation among the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 84.2%, 55.6% (p < 0.001) and 7.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) was 0.87. CONCLUSIONS: This model stratified sHLH patients into three risk groups with distinct survival outcomes, potentially guiding future therapy.
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
- Clinicopathological Prognostic Model for Survival in Adult Patients With Secondary Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis
- Date Crossref
- 15/03/2025
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- 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.