Early myeloma-related death in elderly patients: development of a clinical prognostic score and evaluation of response sustainability role

Although survival of elderly myeloma patients has significantly improved there is still a subset of patients who, despite being fit and achieving optimal responses, will die within 2 years of diagnosis due to myeloma progression. The objective of this study was to define a scoring prognostic index t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Leukemia 2018-11, Vol.32 (11), p.2427-2434
Hauptverfasser: Rodríguez-Otero, Paula, Mateos, María Victoria, Martínez-López, Joaquín, Martín-Calvo, Nerea, Hernández, Miguel-Teodoro, Ocio, Enrique M., Rosiñol, Laura, Martínez, Rafael, Teruel, Ana-Isabel, Gutiérrez, Norma C., Bargay, Joan, Bengoechea, Enrique, González, Yolanda, de Oteyza, Jaime Pérez, Gironella, Mercedes, Encinas, Cristina, Martín, Jesús, Cabrera, Carmen, Palomera, Luis, de Arriba, Felipe, Cedena, María Teresa, Paiva, Bruno, Puig, Noemí, Oriol, Albert, Bladé, Joan, Lahuerta, Juan José, San Miguel, Jesús F.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Although survival of elderly myeloma patients has significantly improved there is still a subset of patients who, despite being fit and achieving optimal responses, will die within 2 years of diagnosis due to myeloma progression. The objective of this study was to define a scoring prognostic index to identify this group of patients. We have evaluated the outcome of 490 newly diagnosed elderly myeloma patients included in two Spanish trials (GEM2005-GEM2010). Sixty-eight patients (13.8%) died within 2 years of diagnosis (early deaths) due to myeloma progression. Our study shows that the use of simple scoring model based on 4 widely available markers (elevated LDH, ISS 3, high risk CA or >75 years) can contribute to identify up-front these patients. Moreover, unsustained response (
ISSN:0887-6924
1476-5551
DOI:10.1038/s41375-018-0072-6