4.3 Article

RBC transfusion independence among lower risk MDS patients receiving hypomethylating agents: a population-level analysis

Journal

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
Volume 60, Issue 13, Pages 3181-3187

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1622700

Keywords

MDS; HMA; transfusion; azacitdine; decitabine

Funding

  1. NCI's Cancer Clinical Investigator Team Leadership Award (CCITLA)
  2. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [P30 CA016359]
  3. Dennis Cooper Hematology Young Investigator Award
  4. National Cancer Institute [P30 CA016359]
  5. California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program [103885]
  6. National Cancer Institute (NCI)'s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program [N01-PC-35136, N01-PC-35139, N02-PC-15105]
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries [U55/CCR921930-02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most patients with lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) become red blood cell (RBC) transfusion dependent at some time during their disease course. Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) are frequently used in this setting; however, reported rates of in RBC transfusion independence (TI) achieved with HMA therapy vary significantly between studies. Here we study the real-life clinical effectiveness of HMA in inducing RBC TI in anemic LR-MDS patients using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. We find that approximately 40% of LR-MDS patients who were receiving RBC transfusions and 33% who were dependent on RBC transfusions at HMA initiation ultimately achieved TI. The receipt of >= 3 transfusions in the 8-week period before HMA initiation was significantly associated with lower odds of achieving TI. Our study provides important population level estimates of clinical effectiveness of HMAs in LR-MDS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available