Prognostic factors for response and survival in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients treated with azacitidine (AZA) remain largely unknown. Two hundred eighty-two consecutive high or intermediate-2 risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients received AZA in a compassionate, patient-named program. Diagnosis was RA/RARS/RCMD in 4%, RAEB-1 in 20%, RAEB-2 in 54%, and RAEB-t (AML with 21%-30% marrow blasts) in 22%. Cytogenetic risk was good in 31%, intermediate in 17%, and poor in 47%. Patients received AZA for a median of 6 cycles (1-52). Previous low-dose cytosine arabinoside treatment (P ؍ .009), bone marrow blasts > 15% (P ؍ .004), and abnormal karyotype (P ؍ .03) independently predicted lower response rates. Complex karyotype predicted shorter responses (P ؍ .0003). Performance status > 2, intermediate-and poor-risk cytogenetics, presence of circulating blasts, and red blood cell transfusion dependency > 4 units/8 weeks (all P < 10 ؊4 ) independently predicted poorer overall survival (OS). A prognostic score based on those factors discriminated 3 risk groups with median OS not reached, 15.0 and 6.1 months, respectively (P < 10 ؊4 ). This prognostic score was validated in an independent set of patients receiving AZA in the AZA-001 trial (P ؍ .003). Achievement of hematological improvement in patients who did not obtain complete or partial remission was associated with improved OS (P < 10 ؊4 ). In conclusion, routine tests can identify subgroups of patients with distinct prognosis with AZA treatment. (Blood. 2011; 117(2):403-411)
Preemptive treatment increased the incidence of invasive fungal disease, without increasing mortality, and decreased the costs of antifungal drugs. Empirical treatment may provide better survival rates for patients receiving induction chemotherapy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.