| Literature DB >> 35501722 |
Yazhen Bi1,2, Zhaohui Wang3, Saran Feng2, Yan Wang2, Yang Zhao4, Hong Li2, Jingyi Yu2, Qian Liu2, Chuansheng Zhu5,6, Mingzhuo Li7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet counts varied over time after induction chemotherapy. We aimed to investigate the different trajectories of platelet counts after the first cycle of induction chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Acute myeloid leukemia; All-cause mortality; Platelet counts; Trajectory
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35501722 PMCID: PMC9059911 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09601-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.638
Fig. 1Trajectory of PLT counts after induction chemotherapy over time. Each trajectory is represented by a different color. group1: low-stability group, group2: low-level decrease-medium elevation group, group3: low-level decrease-high level elevation group, group4: high-level decrease-medium elevation group
The model fitting of optimal trajectories of platelet counts
| Number of groups | Variables | Highest order of trajectory curve | BIC | % Participants | Mean posterior probabilities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Platelets | 3 | -2798.27 | 100% | 100% |
| 2 | Platelets | 3/3 | -2634.87 | 26.85%73.15% | 92.83%/96.21% |
| 3 | Platelets | 3/3/3 | -2588.60 | 25.50%/8.72%/65.77% | 91.18%/96.33%/95.50% |
| 4 | |||||
| 5 | Platelets | 3/3/3/3/3 | -2528.54 | 1.34%/26.17%/8.72%/ 52.35%/11.41% | 100.00%/93.29%/95.48%/ 93.98%/91.04% |
BIC Bayesian information criterion; the optimal model is highlighted in bold
Parameter estimates for the optimal group-based trajectory model
| Variables | Group | Coefficient of trajectory equations | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | Linear | Quadratic | Cubic | ||
| Platelets | 1 | 3.5174 | -0.1721 | 0.0074 | -0.0001 |
| 2 | 4.0584 | -0.4547 | 0.0273 | -0.0004 | |
| 3 | 4.3558 | -0.4181 | 0.0282 | -0.0004 | |
| 4 | 6.2008 | -0.5253 | 0.0266 | -0.0003 | |
Group 1 to group 4 indicate different trajectories of platelet counts
Baseline characteristics according to different trajectories of platelets
| Characteristics | Group 1( | Group 2( | Group 3( | Group 4( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The number of deaths, n | 15 | 15 | 8 | 5 | |
| Mortality rate per 1000 person-days | 1.90 | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.70 | 0.004 |
| Follow-up times, (days) | 99.00 (43.00, 289.50) | 355.50 (182.25, 814.00) | 327.50 (156.75, 1055.00) | 185.50 (129.75, 464.25) | 0.002 |
| Age, year | 54.00 (45.50, 64.00) | 53.00 (43.00, 60.00) | 47.50 (34.00, 57.75) | 52.00 (43.25, 65.00) | 0.209 |
| Female, n (%) | 14 (51.85) | 19 (45.24) | 33 (55.00) | 8 (40.00) | 0.612 |
| WBC counts, 109/L | 7.07 (1.50, 43.52) | 17.05 (6.59, 46.22) | 13.77 (6.78, 54.94) | 3.57 (2.09, 16.16) | 0.083 |
| HB, g/L | 69.11 ± 19.11 | 71.52 ± 20.27 | 86.67 ± 23.88 | 82.30 ± 26.81 | < 0.001 |
| Bone Marrow Blasts(%) | 0.60 (0.38, 0.79) | 0.57 (0.37, 0.87) | 0.60 (0.42, 0.80) | 0.47 (0.40, 0.75) | 0.877 |
| Missing sample | 0 | 1 | 9 | 2 | |
| PLT, 109/L | 34.00 (17.50, 56.50) | 20.50 (10.25, 36.25) | 41.00 (20.75, 74.25) | 149.00 (120.00, 232.00) | < 0.001 |
| CR1, n(%) | 0 (0) | 30 (71.43) | 50 (83.33) | 5 (25.00) | < 0.001 |
The data were presented as mean ± SDs, median (P25, P75), number, or number (%). WBC white blood cell, HB hemoglobin, PLT platelet, Group 1:low-stability group; Group 2: low-level decrease-medium elevation group; Group 3: low-level decrease-high level elevation group; Group 4: high-level decrease-medium elevation group
* p < 0.001; † p < 0.01; ‡ p < 0.05
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier survival curve of PLT count trajectories after induction chemotherapy
HRs and 95% CIs of trajectories on mortality risk
| Modela | Modelb | Modelc | Modeld | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trajectories groups | ||||
| Group 1 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Group 2 | 0.34 (0.16–0.74)† | 0.32 (0.15–0.68)† | 0.33 (0.14–0.77)‡ | 0.35 (0.15–0.81)‡ |
| Group 3 | 0.29 (0.14–0.59)* | 0.31 (0.15–0.63)† | 0.31 (0.14–0.67)† | 0.30 (0.14–0.66)† |
| Group 4 | 0.36 (0.13–0.99)‡ | 0.35 (0.13–0.89)‡ | 0.41 (0.15–1.09) | 0.27 (0.07–1.09) |
| age | 1.03 (1.01–1.05)† | 1.03 (1.01–1.05)† | 1.03 (1.01–1.05)† | |
| gender | 0.81 (0.46–1.42) | 0.68 (0.35–1.29) | 0.65 (0.33–1.26) | |
| WBC | 1.00 (0.99–1.01) | 1.00 (0.99–1.01) | ||
| Bone marrow blasts PLT | 2.79 (0.64–12.09) | 3.06 (0.68–13.74) | ||
| 1.00 (0.99–1.01) | ||||
HRs, hazard ratios; CIs, confidence intervals; group 1 to group 4 indicate different trajectories of platelets
aAdjusting for platelet trajectories
bAdjusting for platelet trajectories, age, gender
cAdjusting for platelet trajectories, age, gender, WBC, and bone marrow blasts (bone marrow blasts were damaged, causing 12 to be damaged, leaving 137 people in the model, of whom 87 survived and 50 died)
dAdjusting for platelet trajectories, age, gender, WBC count, bone marrow blasts (bone marrow blasts were damaged, causing 12 to be damaged, leaving 137 people in the model, of whom 87 survived and 50 died.), and PLT
* p < 0.001; † p < 0.01; ‡ p < 0.05
Fig. 3PLT trajectories of the down-sample of number from 147 to 137
Fig. 4PLT trajectories of the down-sample of number from 135 to 125
Fig. 5PLT trajectories of the down-sample of number from 123 to 113
Fig. 6PLT trajectories of the down-sample of number from 111 to 101
The probability of being reassigned to the original trajectory*
| Number | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 149 | Reference | |||||
| 147 | (25/25) 100% | (42/42) 100% | (60/60) 100% | (20/20) 100% | ||
| 145 | (24/24) 100% | (42/42) 100% | (59/59) 100% | (20/20) 100% | ||
| 143 | (23/23) 100% | (42/42) 100% | (56/58) 96.55% | (20/20) 100% | ||
| 141 | (22/23) 95.65% | (42/42) 100% | (56/58) 96.55% | (17/18) 96.44% | ||
| 139 | (22/23) 95.65% | (42/42) 100% | (54/56) 96.43% | (17/18) 96.44% | ||
| 137 | (21/22) 95.45% | (42/42) 100% | (53/55) 96.36% | (17/18) 96.44% | ||
| 135 | (21/22) 95.45% | (42/42) 100% | (51/53) 96.23% | (17/18) 96.44% | ||
| 133 | (20/22) 90.91% | (41/41) 100% | (50/52) 96.15% | (17/18) 96.44% | ||
| 131 | (20/21) 95.24% | (41/41) 100% | (49/51) 96.08% | (17/18) 96.44% | ||
| 129 | (20/21) 95.24% | (39/39) 100% | (50/51) 98.04% | (17/18) 96.44% | ||
| 127 | (20/21) 95.24% | (39/39) 100% | (48/49) 97.96% | (17/18) 96.44% | ||
| 125 | (19/21) 90.48% | (38/38) 100% | (48/49) 97.96% | (16/17) 94.12% | ||
| 123 | (20/21) 95.24% | (36/36) 100% | (48/49) 97.96% | (17/17) 100% | ||
| 121 | (19/21) 90.48% | (36/36) 100% | (48/48) 100% | (15/16) 93.75% | ||
| 119 | (19/21) 90.48% | (36/36) 100% | (46/46) 100% | (15/16) 93.75% | ||
| 117 | (19/21) 90.48% | (36/36) 100% | (44/44) 100% | (15/16) 93.75% | ||
| 115 | (19/21) 90.48% | (35/35) 100% | (44/44) 100% | (14/15) 93.33% | ||
| 113 | (19/21) 90.48% | (35/35) 100% | (42/42) 100% | (14/15) 93.33% | ||
| 111 | (20/21) 95.24% | (33/33) 100% | (42/42) 100% | (14/15) 93.33% | ||
| 109 | (20/21) 95.24% | (31/31) 100% | (42/42) 100% | (14/15) 93.33% | ||
| 107 | (21/21) 100% | (31/31) 100% | (42/42) 100% | (11/13) 84.62% | ||
| 105 | (20/20) 100% | (31/31) 100% | (41/41) 100% | (11/13) 84.62% | ||
| 103 | (20/20) 100% | (30/30) 100% | (41/41) 100% | (11/12) 91.67% | ||
| 101 | (20/20) 100% | (30/30) 100% | (40/40) 100% | (9/11) 81.82% | ||
*Taking the trajectory results of 147 patients as an example, 25 patients in the trajectory model of 149 people were assigned to group 1, and these 25 people were reassigned to group 1 in the trajectory model of 147 people. The probability of being reassigned to the original trajectory was 100%