Prediction of Survival and Prognosis Migration from Gold-Standard Scores in Myelofibrosis Patients Treated with Ruxolitinib Applying the RR6 Prognostic Model in a Monocentric Real-Life Setting.
RR6 prognostic score
model validation
myelofibrosis
overall survival
ruxolitinib
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Dec 2022
14 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
11
11
2022
accepted:
13
12
2022
entrez:
23
12
2022
pubmed:
24
12
2022
medline:
24
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The wide use of ruxolitinib, approved for treating primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF), has revolutionized the landscape of these diseases. This molecule can reduce spleen volume and constitutional symptoms, guaranteeing patients a better quality of life and survival or even a valid bridge to bone marrow transplantation. Despite a rapid response within the first 3 to 6 months of treatment, some patients fail to achieve a significant benefit or lose early response. After ruxolitinib failure, new drugs are available to provide an additional therapeutic option for these patients. However, the correct timing point for deciding on a therapy shift is still an open challenge. Recently, a clinical prognostic score named RR6 (Response to Ruxolitinib after 6 months) was proposed to determine survival after 6 months of treatment with ruxolitinib in patients affected by MF. We applied this model to a cohort of consecutive patients treated at our center to validate the results obtained in terms of median overall survival (mOS): for the low-risk class, mOS was not reached (as in the training cohort); for the intermediate-risk, mOS was 52 months (95% CI 39-106); for the high-risk, it was 33 (95% 8.5-59). Moreover, in addition to the other studies present in the literature, we evaluated how the new RR6 score could better identify primary MF patients at high risk, with a slight or no agreement compared to DIPSS, contrary to what occurs in secondary MF. Thus, we were able to confirm the predictive power of the RR6 model in our series, which might be of help in guiding future therapeutic choices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36556033
pii: jcm11247418
doi: 10.3390/jcm11247418
pmc: PMC9783796
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Br J Haematol. 2020 Jun;189(5):888-903
pubmed: 32017044
Leukemia. 2013 Sep;27(9):1861-9
pubmed: 23619563
Semin Hematol. 2018 Oct;55(4):248-255
pubmed: 30502854
Blood. 2009 Mar 26;113(13):2895-901
pubmed: 18988864
Blood Adv. 2022 Aug 9;6(15):4424-4426
pubmed: 35737865
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 1;366(9):799-807
pubmed: 22375971
Cancer. 2020 Mar 15;126(6):1243-1252
pubmed: 31860137
Blood. 2014 Aug 14;124(7):1062-9
pubmed: 24986690
Blood. 2010 Mar 4;115(9):1703-8
pubmed: 20008785
Ann Hematol. 2020 Jan;99(1):65-72
pubmed: 31832751
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 1;366(9):787-98
pubmed: 22375970
Mayo Clin Proc. 2012 Jan;87(1):25-33
pubmed: 22212965
Blood Adv. 2022 Mar 22;6(6):1855-1864
pubmed: 35130339
Hematol Oncol. 2018 Feb;36(1):285-290
pubmed: 28512865
Br J Haematol. 2022 Mar;196(5):1149-1158
pubmed: 34618358
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb 1;29(4):392-7
pubmed: 21149668
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 Jul;108(30):515-21
pubmed: 21904584
Leukemia. 2017 Dec;31(12):2726-2731
pubmed: 28561069
Int J Hematol. 2022 May;115(5):626-644
pubmed: 35352288
Leuk Res. 2017 Aug;59:110-116
pubmed: 28601551