Immunosuppressive Treatment for Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes: A Review of 358 Patients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 1717 Scientific and clinical evidence support a role for immune dysregulation in the pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in some patients, and immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is considered a standard treatment for selected patients with MDS. Despite a number of studies showing its efficacy in MDS, IST has not been widely adopted because of uncertainty about therapeutic benefit, perceived toxicities of antibody treatment, and confusion about patient selection. To better define the place of IST in MDS, we reviewed all published clinical trials of IST for adult patients with MDS to determine its therapeutic benefit and treatment-related toxicity. We also sought to define clinical and laboratory predictors for response to IST. IST was defined as T cell directed therapies, including the following drugs administered alone or in combination: cyclosporine A (CsA), rabbit or horse anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), alemtuzumab, sirolimus, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, or daclizumab. Electronic databases were scanned for all peer-reviewed clinical trial reports concerning IST for MDS from inception through August 1, 2011. Risk of bias for each study was assessed by two independent investigators using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, SCOPUS, Web of Science and EMBASE yielded a total of 1950 articles, and 1937 were subsequently discarded based on our a priori exclusion criteria. A total of 13 reports from 13 individual clinical trials enrolling 358 patients met criteria for this review. IST was well tolerated with a treatment-related mortality rate of 1.3%. Hematologic improvements (HI), partial response (PR), and complete response (CR) was defined using International Working Group for MDS criteria. The overall response rate (ORR) to IST was 41% (HI 18%, PR 15%, and CR 8%). ORR according to treatment regimen were alemtuzumab 68% (n= 31 patients), CsA 56% (n=111 patients), h-ATG 35%, (n=83 patients), r-ATG/CsA 30% (n= 20 patients), r-ATG 27%, (n=15 patients), and h-ATG/CSA 25% (n=79 patients). Response rates were higher when patients were treated on protocols incorporating specific selection criteria versus unselected patients (ORR 59% vs 41%, p=0.01). Patients with a hypocellular bone marrow had response rates that were equal to individuals with normal or increased marrow cellularity: ORR 63% vs 63%, (p=0.99); PR 25% vs 23%, (p=0.81); CR 15% vs 11%, (p=0.46). Patients younger than 60 years had significantly higher response rates to IST than older individuals (ORR 59% vs 40%, p=0.004), irrespective of the treatment regimen administered. Patients who were transfusion dependent had response rates equal to those who were transfusion independent at the time of treatment (ORR 60% vs 55%, p=0.57). Response rates in patients with low and intermediate cytogenetic risk groups as defined by the International Prognostic Scoring Scale (IPSS) were 51% and 49%, respectively. Response rates varied according to World Health Organization (WHO) Prognostic Scoring Scale (WPSS) morphology categories, with overall response rates of 57% (n=128 patients), 10% (n=10 patients), and 21% (n=39 patients) in individuals with very low, low, and intermediate morphology categories, respectively. Response rates did not vary according to gender or cell lineages involved. These results indicate that the choice of IST may be critical in optimizing responses and that IST should be considered for MDS patients younger than 60 years old, with low and intermediate risk IPSS cytogenetics and very low WHO morphology categories, regardless of bone marrow cellularity and duration of transfusion dependence. CsA Alemtuzumab hATG hATG/CsA rATG rATG/CsA Sirolimus ANOVA Response R% (range) No. R% (range) No. R% (range) No. R% (range) No. R% (range) No. R% (range) No. R% (range) No. P-value CR 3 3/111 23 7/31 5 4/83 10 8/79 20 3/15 15 3/20 0 0/19 0.002 (1–8) (10–41) (1–12) (5–19) (4–48) (3–38) — PR 24 27/111 13 4/31 16 13/83 4 3/79 7 1/15 15 3/20 16 3/19 0.013 (17–33) (4–30) (9–25) (1–11) (0.1–32) (3–38) (3–40) HI 29 32/111 32 10/31 15 12/83 11 9/79 0 0/15 0 0/20 0 0/19 <0.0001 (21–38) (17–51) (8–24) (5–21) — — — ORR 56 62/111 68 21/31 35 29/83 25 20/79 27 4/15 30 6/20 16 3/19 <0.00001 (46–65) (49–83) (25–46) (16–36) (8–55) (12–54) (3–40) Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».