MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4385655716 · doi:10.1097/01.hs9.0000974860.48116.9c

PB2012: DESCRIBING TREATMENT PATTERNS IN PATIENTS WITH MYELODYSPLASTIC SYNDROME ACCORDING TO IPSS-R RISK CATEGORY

2023· article· en· W4385655716 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sorcha Corry, Arushi Bamrara, Núria Lara, Daniel Cuadras, Federica Centorrino, Ricardo Viana

Notice bibliographique

RevueHemaSphere · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemMyelodysplastic syndromesDemographicsInternal medicinePediatricsDemography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Topic: 10. Myelodysplastic syndromes - Clinical Background: Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a heterogeneous entity of hematologic disorders leading to a substantial range of prognosis for patients. Patients’ management and treatment goals vary according to their prognostic risk, per the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R), and individual characteristics. Patients at lower risk mainly receive supportive care whereas those at higher risk receive high-intensity therapy. Aims: The study aimed to assess real-world treatment patterns of MDS patients by their risk and age. Methods: An online survey was conducted in France, UK, Italy, and Canada amongst a panel of 139 haemato-oncologists who regularly manage MDS patients. Each panelist reported anonymous patient-level data for 3-6 patients, at least one for each pre-defined category: low risk (LR-MDS) including very low or low IPSS-R, intermediate risk (IR-MDS) corresponding to intermediate IPSS-R, and high risk (HR-MDS) including high or very high IPSS-R at the time of diagnosis. All patients must had received at least one line (1L) of therapy. Demographics, health status, and treatment pathway were collected for patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2021. Descriptive statistics were reported per risk category and age. Results: Data for 588 patients were collected; 59.4% were males and 56.5% were >70 years old at diagnosis. Patients’ distribution per risk category was: 43.3% HR, 23.0% IR and 33.7% LR-MDS. Mean follow-up duration was 22.1 months (LR, 26.9 months; IR, 24.1 months; HR, 17.2 months). Overall, 439 patients (74.7%) received only 1L of therapy, 136 patients (23.1%) a second line (2L), and 13 patients (2.2%) received a third line or more (+3L). No patient received more than four lines of treatment. Of the 439 patients that received only a 1L, 60.4% were >70 years of age. In the LR-MDS group, 18.2% patients received more than 1L of therapy (+1L); of them 36.1% were ≤70 years. Amongst patients with IR-MDS, 35.6% received +1L, of them, 56.2% were ≤70 years. In the HR-MDS group, 25.5% received +1L, 64.6% of them were ≤70 years. Among all patients, best supportive care (BSC) was the most frequent treatment for 1L (n=409; 69.6%), HMAs for 2L (n=60; 40.3%) and other therapies for 3L (n=7; 53.8%), venetoclax among them, used by 5 patients (38.5%). BSC was the most frequent treatment for LR-MDS patients as 1L and 2L treatment with 87.4% and 50.0% of patients, respectively. Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) were the second most used treatment in both lines (1L: 11.6%; 2L: 30.6%) (Table 1). Similar results were obtained for IR-MDS patients, with 78.5% and 43.8% being treated with BSC at 1L and 2L, respectively. HMAs remained the second most frequent treatment (1L: 36.3%; 2L: 35.4%) among these patients. For HR-MDS patients, the most frequent treatment was HMAs in both, 1L (70.6%) and 2L (49.2%), while BSC was the second most frequent treatment in both lines of therapy (1L: 51.0%; 2L: 75.0%). Only 18 patients received a 3L of therapy, with BSC being most used in LR-MDS (3 out of 4 patients) while venetoclax being most commonly used in IR-MDS (2 out of 5 patients) and HR-MDS groups (2 out of 4 patients). Venetoclax was used mainly by HR-MDS patients with 7.5% (n=19), 21.5% (n=14) and 50.0% (n=2) of patients receiving it in 1L, 2L and 3L, respectively.Summary/Conclusion: The majority of patients with MDS older than 70 years old received only 1L, while patients with IR or HR-MDS, and ≤ 70 years old, received more lines of therapy. The most common treatment in 1L was BSC for LR and IR-MDS, and HMAs for HR-MDS. Off-label use of venetoclax was mainly observed in HR-MDS patients. Keywords: Myelodysplastic syndrome, Treatment

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,266
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHemaSphereMême sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207