98
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Myelodysplastic syndromes

      , ,
      The Lancet
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Myelodysplastic syndromes are clonal marrow stem-cell disorders, characterised by ineffective haemopoiesis leading to blood cytopenias, and by progression to acute myeloid leukaemia in a third of patients. 15% of cases occur after chemotherapy or radiotherapy for a previous cancer; the syndromes are most common in elderly people. The pathophysiology involves cytogenetic changes with or without gene mutations and widespread gene hypermethylation at advanced stages. Clinical manifestations result from cytopenias (anaemia, infection, and bleeding). Diagnosis is based on examination of blood and bone marrow showing blood cytopenias and hypercellular marrow with dysplasia, with or without excess of blasts. Prognosis depends largely on the marrow blast percentage, number and extent of cytopenias, and cytogenetic abnormalities. Treatment of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, especially for anaemia, includes growth factors, lenalidomide, and transfusions. Treatment of higher-risk patients is with hypomethylating agents and, whenever possible, allogeneic stem-cell transplantation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references157

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Revised international prognostic scoring system for myelodysplastic syndromes.

          The International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) is an important standard for assessing prognosis of primary untreated adult patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). To refine the IPSS, MDS patient databases from international institutions were coalesced to assemble a much larger combined database (Revised-IPSS [IPSS-R], n = 7012, IPSS, n = 816) for analysis. Multiple statistically weighted clinical features were used to generate a prognostic categorization model. Bone marrow cytogenetics, marrow blast percentage, and cytopenias remained the basis of the new system. Novel components of the current analysis included: 5 rather than 3 cytogenetic prognostic subgroups with specific and new classifications of a number of less common cytogenetic subsets, splitting the low marrow blast percentage value, and depth of cytopenias. This model defined 5 rather than the 4 major prognostic categories that are present in the IPSS. Patient age, performance status, serum ferritin, and lactate dehydrogenase were significant additive features for survival but not for acute myeloid leukemia transformation. This system comprehensively integrated the numerous known clinical features into a method analyzing MDS patient prognosis more precisely than the initial IPSS. As such, this IPSS-R should prove beneficial for predicting the clinical outcomes of untreated MDS patients and aiding design and analysis of clinical trials in this disease.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy of azacitidine compared with that of conventional care regimens in the treatment of higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a randomised, open-label, phase III study.

            Drug treatments for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes provide no survival advantage. In this trial, we aimed to assess the effect of azacitidine on overall survival compared with the three commonest conventional care regimens. In a phase III, international, multicentre, controlled, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes were randomly assigned one-to-one to receive azacitidine (75 mg/m(2) per day for 7 days every 28 days) or conventional care (best supportive care, low-dose cytarabine, or intensive chemotherapy as selected by investigators before randomisation). Patients were stratified by French-American-British and international prognostic scoring system classifications; randomisation was done with a block size of four. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat for all patients assigned to receive treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00071799. Between Feb 13, 2004, and Aug 7, 2006, 358 patients were randomly assigned to receive azacitidine (n=179) or conventional care regimens (n=179). Four patients in the azacitidine and 14 in the conventional care groups received no study drugs but were included in the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis. After a median follow-up of 21.1 months (IQR 15.1-26.9), median overall survival was 24.5 months (9.9-not reached) for the azacitidine group versus 15.0 months (5.6-24.1) for the conventional care group (hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.43-0.77; stratified log-rank p=0.0001). At last follow-up, 82 patients in the azacitidine group had died compared with 113 in the conventional care group. At 2 years, on the basis of Kaplan-Meier estimates, 50.8% (95% CI 42.1-58.8) of patients in the azacitidine group were alive compared with 26.2% (18.7-34.3) in the conventional care group (p<0.0001). Peripheral cytopenias were the most common grade 3-4 adverse events for all treatments. Treatment with azacitidine increases overall survival in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes relative to conventional care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              International scoring system for evaluating prognosis in myelodysplastic syndromes.

              Despite multiple disparate prognostic risk analysis systems for evaluating clinical outcome for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), imprecision persists with such analyses. To attempt to improve on these systems, an International MDS Risk Analysis Workshop combined cytogenetic, morphological, and clinical data from seven large previously reported risk-based studies that had generated prognostic systems. A global analysis was performed on these patients, and critical prognostic variables were re-evaluated to generate a consensus prognostic system, particularly using a more refined bone marrow (BM) cytogenetic classification. Univariate analysis indicated that the major variables having an impact on disease outcome for evolution to acute myeloid leukemia were cytogenetic abnormalities, percentage of BM myeloblasts, and number of cytopenias; for survival, in addition to the above, variables also included age and gender. Cytogenetic subgroups of outcome were as follows: "good" outcomes were normal, -Y alone, del(5q) alone, del(20q) alone; "poor" outcomes were complex (ie, > or = 3 abnormalities) or chromosome 7 anomalies; and "intermediate" outcomes were other abnormalities. Multivariate analysis combined these cytogenetic subgroups with percentage of BM blasts and number of cytopenias to generate a prognostic model. Weighting these variables by their statistical power separated patients into distinctive subgroups of risk for 25% of patients to undergo evolution to acute myeloid leukemia, with: low (31% of patients), 9.4 years; intermediate-1 (INT-1; 39%), 3.3 years; INT-2 (22%), 1.1 years; and high (8%), 0.2 year. These features also separated patients into similar distinctive risk groups for median survival: low, 5.7 years; INT-1, 3.5 years; INT-2, 1.2 years; and high, 0.4 year. Stratification for age further improved analysis of survival. Compared with prior risk-based classifications, this International Prognostic Scoring System provides an improved method for evaluating prognosis in MDS. This classification system should prove useful for more precise design and analysis of therapeutic trials in this disease.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The Lancet
                The Lancet
                Elsevier BV
                01406736
                June 2014
                June 2014
                : 383
                : 9936
                : 2239-2252
                Article
                10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61901-7
                24656536
                10c87d35-ea35-4726-bc40-abfa09373e95
                © 2014

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article