A prognostic model to predict survival in 867 World Health Organization - Defined essential thrombocythemia at diagnosis: A study by the International Working Group on Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment

244Citations
Citations of this article
158Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia (ET) has been updated in the last World Health Organization (WHO) classification. We developed a prognostic model to predict survival at diagnosis, named IPSET (International Prognostic Score for ET), studying patients with WHO-defined ET. Age 60 years or older, leukocyte count ≥ 11 × 109/L, and prior thrombosis significantly affected survival, by multivariable Cox regression. On the basis of the hazard ratio, we assigned 2 points to age and 1 each to leukocyte count and thrombosis. So, the IPSET model allocated 867 patients into 3 risk categories with significantly different survival: low (sum of points = 0; median survival not reached), intermediate (sum = 1-2; median survival 24.5 years), and high (sum = 3-4, median survival 13.8 years). The IPSET model was further validated in 2 independent cohorts including 132 WHO-defined ET and 234 Polycythemia Vera Study Group-defined ET patients. The IPSET model was able to predict the occurrence of thrombosis, and not to predict post-ET myelofibrosis. In conclusion, IPSET, based on age ≥ 60 years, leukocyte count ≥ 11 × 109/L, and history of thrombosis allows prognostic assessment of WHO-defined ET and the validation process makes IPSET applicable in all patients phenotypically appearing as ET. © 2012 by The American Society of Hematology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Passamonti, F., Thiele, J., Girodon, F., Rumi, E., Carobbio, A., Gisslinger, H., … Tefferi, A. (2012). A prognostic model to predict survival in 867 World Health Organization - Defined essential thrombocythemia at diagnosis: A study by the International Working Group on Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment. Blood, 120(6), 1197–1201. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2012-01-403279

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free