Literature DB >> 3986136

Staging systems for multiple myeloma: a comparison.

W Gassmann, H Pralle, T Haferlach, S Pandurevic, M Graubner, N Schmitz, H Löffler.   

Abstract

In 152 patients with multiple myeloma who had been treated with cytostatic agents the prognostic value of seven staging systems was evaluated: Carbone et al (1967); Acute Leukemia Group B (ALGB) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (Costa et al, 1973); Southeastern Cancer Study Group (SECSG) (1975); Durie & Salmon (1975); Alexanian et al (1975); Merlini et al (1980); British Medical Research Council (1980). The staging systems of the ALGB (Costa et al, 1973) and SECSG (1975), both dividing patients into 'good risk' and 'poor risk' groups, showed significantly different survival curves. Nevertheless, despite statistical significance the observed differences were rather small. In the systems of Carbone et al (1967), Merlini et al (1980), Alexanian et al (1975) and Durie & Salmon (1975) some of the differences in the survival curves were statistically significant while others were not. Our data best fitted into the British Medical Research Council (1980) staging system, the survival curves of all three stages showing significant differences, with median survival time dropping from 83 months in stage A to 52 months in stage B and 26 months in stage C. Nevertheless, none of those systems was clearly superior to single risk factors, especially creatinine and haemoglobin.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3986136     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1985.tb07366.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Haematol        ISSN: 0007-1048            Impact factor:   6.998


  4 in total

1.  Comorbidity as a prognostic variable in multiple myeloma: comparative evaluation of common comorbidity scores and use of a novel MM-comorbidity score.

Authors:  M Kleber; G Ihorst; M Terhorst; B Koch; B Deschler; R Wäsch; M Engelhardt
Journal:  Blood Cancer J       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 11.037

2.  Prognostic factors and classification in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  J F San Miguel; J Sànchez; M Gonzalez
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 3.  Gene Expression Profiling in Multiple Myeloma: Redefining the Paradigm of Risk-Adapted Treatment.

Authors:  Claudio Cerchione; Saad Z Usmani; A Keith Stewart; Martin Kaiser; Leo Rasche; Martin Kortüm; María-Victoria Mateos; Andrew Spencer; Pieter Sonneveld; Kenneth C Anderson
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  Is the International Staging System superior to the Durie-Salmon staging system? A comparison in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplant.

Authors:  P N Hari; M-J Zhang; V Roy; W S Pérez; A Bashey; L B To; G Elfenbein; C O Freytes; R P Gale; J Gibson; R A Kyle; H M Lazarus; P L McCarthy; G A Milone; S Pavlovsky; D E Reece; G Schiller; J Vela-Ojeda; D Weisdorf; D Vesole
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 11.528

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.