4.2 Article

Diagnosis according to World Health Organization determines the long-term prognosis in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms treated with anagrelide: Results of a prospective long-term follow-up

期刊

HEMATOLOGY
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 8-13

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/1607845412Y.0000000023

关键词

Myeloproliferative neoplasm; Anagrelide; Primary myelofibrosis; Essential thrombocythemia; Polycythemia vera

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: During long term follow-up of a cohort of patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) a higher than expected incidence of myelofibrosis (MF) was noted. In order to test if the explanation could be found in the diagnostic criteria a re-evaluation of diagnosis using the 2008 WHO diagnostic criteria for ET and MF was performed. Methods: This prospective study of 60 patients with ET and PV was set up in 1998 to evaluate the long-term efficacy and tolerability of anagrelide treatment. Bone marrow trephine biopsies were requested from study start, after 2 and 7 years of follow-up. A blinded re-evaluation of the bone marrow trephines was performed. The 2008 WHO bone marrow criteria were used for diagnosis and fibrosis grading. Results: Of 40 patients with an initial diagnosis of ET, 21 were confirmed as 'true ET' whereas 17 were reclassified as primary myelofibrosis (PMF) ( 12 PMF-0, 3 PMF-1, 2 PMF-2) and 2 as myeloproliferative neoplasms of uncertain origin. After 7 years of follow-up, 19 of 21 patients with 'true ET' were alive, none had transformed to MF, leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome. In contrast, 4/17 patients reclassified as PMF had died, two patients transformed to myelodysplastic syndrome and 7 patients progressed to overt MF. Discussion: We conclude that a blinded re-evaluation of bone marrow trephines from study start and after 7 years of follow-up using 2008 World Health Organization criteria was able to differentiate between true ET and PMF with a marked difference in follow-up outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据