BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Great prognostic heterogeneity complicates therapy-planning and a correct evaluation of clinical trials in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Thus, the development of a prognostic classification of MDS is of major clinical relevance, especially when the advanced age of most patients and the aggressiveness of the curative treatment modalities currently available are considered. This review summarizes the results of different studies focusing on prognostic factors in MDS and deals with the pros and cons of prognostic scoring systems that have been recently developed. It also discusses the prognostic factors of particular subtypes of patients and those isolated with certain treatment options. EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION SOURCES: The authors of the present review have been working in different areas of the field of MDS for several years, have contributed original papers on the prognostic factors and therapy of these disorders, and have taken part in the recent International MDS Risk Analysis Workshop that has resulted in the development of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) for MDS. STATE OF THE ART AND PERSPECTIVES: The percentage of marrow blasts, cytogenetic pattern and number and degree of cytopenias are the most powerful prognostic indicators in MDS. Although some limitations are evident, the recently developed scoring systems, and particularly the IPSS, are extremely useful for predicting survival and acute leukemic risk in individuals with MDS and should be incorporated to the design and analysis of therapeutic trials in these disorders. A risk-adapted treatment strategy is now possible and highly recommended for MDS patients.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Great prognostic heterogeneity complicates therapy-planning and a correct evaluation of clinical trials in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Thus, the development of a prognostic classification of MDS is of major clinical relevance, especially when the advanced age of most patients and the aggressiveness of the curative treatment modalities currently available are considered. This review summarizes the results of different studies focusing on prognostic factors in MDS and deals with the pros and cons of prognostic scoring systems that have been recently developed. It also discusses the prognostic factors of particular subtypes of patients and those isolated with certain treatment options. EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION SOURCES: The authors of the present review have been working in different areas of the field of MDS for several years, have contributed original papers on the prognostic factors and therapy of these disorders, and have taken part in the recent International MDS Risk Analysis Workshop that has resulted in the development of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) for MDS. STATE OF THE ART AND PERSPECTIVES: The percentage of marrow blasts, cytogenetic pattern and number and degree of cytopenias are the most powerful prognostic indicators in MDS. Although some limitations are evident, the recently developed scoring systems, and particularly the IPSS, are extremely useful for predicting survival and acute leukemic risk in individuals with MDS and should be incorporated to the design and analysis of therapeutic trials in these disorders. A risk-adapted treatment strategy is now possible and highly recommended for MDSpatients.
Authors: Dana E Rollison; P K Epling-Burnette; Jong Y Park; Ji-Hyun Lee; Hyun Park; Kristen Jonathan; Ashley L Cole; Jeffrey S Painter; Mayenha Guerrier; Johana Meléndez-Santiago; William Fulp; Rami Komrokji; Jeffrey Lancet; Alan F List Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2011-06-03
Authors: Li Zhou; Christine McMahon; Tushar Bhagat; Cristina Alencar; Yiting Yu; Melissa Fazzari; Davendra Sohal; Christoph Heuck; Krishna Gundabolu; Chun Ng; Yongkai Mo; Wa Shen; Amittha Wickrema; Guanghui Kong; Ellen Friedman; Lubomir Sokol; Ioannis Mantzaris; Giannis Mantzaris; Andrea Pellagatti; Jacqueline Boultwood; Leonidas C Platanias; Ulrich Steidl; Lei Yan; Jonathan M Yingling; Michael M Lahn; Alan List; Markus Bitzer; Amit Verma Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Tony A Navas; Mani Mohindru; Myka Estes; Jing Ying Ma; Lubomir Sokol; Perry Pahanish; Simrit Parmar; Edwin Haghnazari; Li Zhou; Robert Collins; Irene Kerr; Aaron N Nguyen; Yin Xu; Leonidas C Platanias; Alan A List; Linda S Higgins; Amit Verma Journal: Blood Date: 2006-08-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Mikkael A Sekeres; Steven D Gore; Donald M Stablein; Nancy DiFronzo; Gregory A Abel; Amy E DeZern; Jesse D Troy; Dana E Rollison; John W Thomas; Myron A Waclawiw; Jane Jijun Liu; Tareq Al Baghdadi; Matthew J Walter; Rafael Bejar; Edward J Gorak; Daniel T Starczynowski; James M Foran; James R Cerhan; Lynn C Moscinski; Rami S Komrokji; H Joachim Deeg; Pearlie K Epling-Burnette Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2019-05-21
Authors: Peter L Greenberg; Eyal Attar; John M Bennett; Clara D Bloomfield; Carlos M De Castro; H Joachim Deeg; James M Foran; Karin Gaensler; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Steven D Gore; David Head; Rami Komrokji; Lori J Maness; Michael Millenson; Stephen D Nimer; Margaret R O'Donnell; Mark A Schroeder; Paul J Shami; Richard M Stone; James E Thompson; Peter Westervelt Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jane L Liesveld; Karen E Rosell; Jeremy Bechelli; Chaohui Lu; Patti Messina; Deborah Mulford; J J Ifthikharuddin; Craig T Jordan; Gordon L Phillips Ii Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Li Zhou; Aaron N Nguyen; Davendra Sohal; Jing Ying Ma; Perry Pahanish; Krishna Gundabolu; Josh Hayman; Adam Chubak; Yongkai Mo; Tushar D Bhagat; Bhaskar Das; Ann M Kapoun; Tony A Navas; Simrit Parmar; Suman Kambhampati; Andrea Pellagatti; Ira Braunchweig; Ying Zhang; Amittha Wickrema; Satyanarayana Medicherla; Jacqueline Boultwood; Leonidas C Platanias; Linda S Higgins; Alan F List; Markus Bitzer; Amit Verma Journal: Blood Date: 2008-05-12 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Peter Valent; Friedrich Wimazal; Ilse Schwarzinger; Wolfgang R Sperr; Klaus Geissler Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2003-08-14 Impact factor: 1.704