MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405092599 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-211183

Impact of Frailty in a Prospective Cohort of Patients with MDS Treated with Hypomethylating Agents

2024· article· en· W4405092599 sur OpenAlexaff
James T. England, Liying Zhang, Karen Yee, Michelle Geddes, Nancy Zhu, April Shamy, Heather A. Leitch, Mitchell Sabloff, Grace Christou, Brett L. Houston, Brian Leber, Dina Khalaf, Ève St‐Hilaire, Nicholas Finn, Thomas J. Nevill, Amy M. Trottier, John M. Storring, Mohamed Elemary, Robert Delage, Rena Buckstein

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Établissements canadiensUniversité LavalUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer CentreUniversity of ManitobaDr. Georges-L.-Dumont University Hospital CentreSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaSunnybrook Health Science CentreJewish General HospitalUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityVancouver General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of CalgarySaskatchewan Cancer AgencyCancerCare ManitobaOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineHypomethylating agentProspective cohort studyMyelodysplastic syndromesDecitabineAzacitidineCohortInternal medicineOncologyBone marrowDNA methylation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are a group of clonal hematopoietic disorders characterized by cytopenias and a risk of progression to Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Frailty is an age-related state of vulnerability that reflects multifactorial loss of physiologic reserve. Up to 25% of patients with MDS are observed to be vulnerable or frail reflecting the advanced age of patients at diagnosis. Frailty has been observed to independently predict survival in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, even after adjustment for standard risk categories, disease-related factors, and comorbidity indexes. An important determinant affecting survival in higher-risk MDS is the ability to receive an adequate trial of therapy with a hypomethylating agent (HMA). The concern of upfront toxicity in patients with frailty may lead to many not being offered HMA therapy and directly impede their survival. Up to 4-6 cycles of HMA therapy may be needed to derive hematopoietic response and survival benefit and patients with frailty may discontinue HMA prior to deriving benefit. We investigated the independent effect of frailty on overall survival and the likelihood of completion of at least 4-6 cycles of HMA therapy in MDS-CAN, a multi-centre, prospective cohort (NCT02537990) of patients with MDS or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Methods: Consecutive patients with a diagnosis of MDS or CMML who received at least one cycle of HMA (azacytidine, decitabine, decitabine/cedazuridine) were included in the study. Frailty, comorbidity, instrumental activities of daily living, disability, quality of life, fatigue and physical performance measures were evaluated at baseline. Frailty was measured using the Rockwood CSHA 9 point clinical frailty scale (FS) and the MDS-specific 15-item frailty scale (FS-15). Overall Survival (OS) years was defined as the time from HMA start date to death or last follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to evaluate the impact of patient- and disease- related variables on OS. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate predictors of completing ≥4 or ≥6 cycles of HMA therapy. Results: A total of 513 patients were included in the study with revised international prognostic scoring system (IPSS-R) risk categories of: very low/low n=22 (4%), intermediate n=103 (20%), high n=145 (28%), and very high n=173 (34%). Median [range] age was 72.7 [66-81] years and 352 (69%) were male. Azacytidine was used in 442 patients while 71 received IV or oral decitabine. The median [interquartile range] number of cycles received was 9 [5-13]. A total of 411 (80%) patients died during the study period, with median [95% confidence interval (CI)] OS for the entire cohort of 1.69 [1.51-1.91] years from HMA start. Frailty was predictive of OS whether measured by the Rockwood FS (P<0.001) or MDS FS-15 (P=0.002). For patients with Rockwood FS categories of 1-2, 3, and ≥4 the actuarial median (95% CI) OS were 2.27 (1.85-2.53) years, 1.38 (1.18-1.71) years, and 1.14 (0.87-1.41) years, respectively. The median [95%CI] OS for MDS FS-15 scores of ≤0.20, 0.21-0.30, and >0.30 were 2.43 (1.07-3.47) years, 1.95 (1.15-2.74) years, and 1.51 (1.32-1.67) years. In multivariable analysis including patient- and disease-specific factors, OS from start of HMA therapy was predicted by older age (Hazard Ratio 1.03 [95%CI 1.01-1.04]), transfusion dependence (HR 1.36 [1.03-1.79], high-risk IPSS-R (HR 2.81 [1.15-6.86]), HMA <4 cycles (HR 3.74 [2.67-5.24]), Rockwood FS (HR 1.14 [1.02-1.27]), and MDS FS-15 score (HR 3.57 [1.25-10.2]). In the study cohort 418 (81%) of patients completed at least 4 cycles of HMA therapy, and 363 (71%) completed ≥6 cycles. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, completion of at least 4- or 6-cycles of HMA therapy were predicted by higher hemoglobin (Odds Ratio 1.03 [95%CI 1.01-1.04] for ≥4 cycles; OR 1.02 [1.001-1.03] for ≥6 cycles), and lower MDS FS-15 scores (OR 0.14 [0.02-0.96] for ≥4 cycles; OR 0.14 [0.03-0.69] for ≥6 cycles). Conclusion: Our study provides further evidence for the importance of frailty evaluation for predicting survival in patients with MDS treated with HMA therapy. The MDS-specific FS-15 measurement of frailty was predictive of patients at risk for not completing 4-6 cycles of HMA therapy and understanding these reasons will be important. Frailty evaluation before HMA may identify patients in need of further supports or alternative therapy strategies.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,374
Écart entre enseignants0,324 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→Travaux en français237 207→