2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2004.03.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Association between phenotypic features of blasts and the blast percentage in bone marrow of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
15
0
3

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
15
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…9,11,17,31 In accordance with previous reports, the frequency of lineage infidelity marker expression on immature myeloid blasts was associated with an increase in the percentage of myeloid blasts and also with more advanced stages of the disease, including RCMD with or without RS, reflecting probably a more leukemic phenotype. 32 This supports the data from Malcovati et al, in which a significant decrease in overall survival and leukemiafree survival is noted from RA with or without RS toward RCMD with or without RS. 17 Prospective studies are ongoing to define which or which combination of lineage infidelity markers may have prognostic impact.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…9,11,17,31 In accordance with previous reports, the frequency of lineage infidelity marker expression on immature myeloid blasts was associated with an increase in the percentage of myeloid blasts and also with more advanced stages of the disease, including RCMD with or without RS, reflecting probably a more leukemic phenotype. 32 This supports the data from Malcovati et al, in which a significant decrease in overall survival and leukemiafree survival is noted from RA with or without RS toward RCMD with or without RS. 17 Prospective studies are ongoing to define which or which combination of lineage infidelity markers may have prognostic impact.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…However, the challenge to more definitively determine individual patient prognosis and thus their appropriate treatment remains, especially within the IPSS Int-1 and Int-2 subgroups. Several variables have recently been studied with the intent to further refine the IPSS (lactic dehydrogenase, immunophenotyping, subgrouping of cytogenetic abnormalities, number of RBC transfusions) [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. To examine the basic data which led to the IPSS classification in more detail, in our retrospective database analysis of primary patients with MDS who had not been treated with disease-altering therapy, we focused on assessing the depth of cytopenias as potential variables that could add further prognostic value to the IPSS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, further refinement is needed for predicting the prognosis of individual patients with MDS, particularly for those in the intermediate-risk groups. More recently, a number of new variables have been proposed that could potentially refine the current IPSS, including lactic dehydrogenase [8][9][10][11], immunophenotyping [12][13][14], further subgrouping of cytogenetic abnormalities [15,16], number of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions [17,18], and depth of neutropenia [19] and thrombocytopenia [20]. Although the number of cytopenias is included as a variable within the IPSS, the depth of cytopenias has not been studied as an independent prognosticator of overall survival (OS) and time to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) evolution in patients with MDS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first consensual agreement concerning this item was that at present only bone marrow aspirates are suitable samples for the immunophenotypic study of MDS. Consensus was reached on that the neutrophil and monocytic lineages are the two main lineages where immunophenotyping might provide robust information for the discrimination among normal hematopoiesis, myelodysplasia, and leukemia (16)(17)(18). Accordingly, an antibody panel for assessing maturation within these cell populations was agreed upon, as summarized in Table 5.…”
Section: Panels Of Combinations Of Monoclonal Antibodiesmentioning
confidence: 99%