These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Classification and scoring systems in myelodysplastic syndromes: a retrospective analysis of 311 patients.
    Author: Navarro I, Ruiz MA, Cabello A, Collado R, Ferrer R, Hueso J, Martinez J, Miguel A, Orero MT, Pérez P, Nolasco A, Carbonell F.
    Journal: Leuk Res; 2006 Aug; 30(8):971-7. PubMed ID: 16423393.
    Abstract:
    The main objective of this study was to evaluate the role of the recent World Health Organization (WHO) classification for assessing prognosis in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). To this effect, we analyzed the prognostic impact of the WHO and French-American-British (FAB) morphologic classifications and of four different scoring systems in a series of 311 patients with primary MDS diagnosed between October 1990 and June 2001. Both the FAB and WHO classifications identified groups with different prognoses (p<0.0001), those presenting refractory anemia (RA) and refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts (RARS) showing the best prognosis. The WHO classification subdivided RA into RA with only red cell dysplasia, and refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (RCMD), and RARS into RARS plus refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia and ringed sideroblast (RCMD-RS). In our population, we have shown that the two subtypes characterized by dysplasia affecting exclusively the erythroid population (RA and RARS) have a better prognosis, with a median survival of 122.2 and 81.9 months, respectively, than those with multilineage dysplasia (RCMD and RCMD-RS) with a median survival of 32.3 and 43.2 months, respectively. There were no significant differences in median survival comparing RA with RAS (p<0.95), or comparing RCMD with RSCMD (p<0.97). Besides, the four scoring systems discriminated our MDS patients in terms of survival, and an increase in prognostic capacity was achieved on adding the score to the morphological classifications. Risk scoring had a greater prognostic impact than the FAB and WHO classifications. Prognostic scoring systems may be an important tool for risk stratification in hematological practice, and add significance to morphological classification. Combined application of the WHO classification and score system is useful for improving the identification of patients with a poorer prognosis. The WHO classification establishes more homogeneous subcategories than the FAB classification and is also able to identify groups with different prognoses.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]