骨髓增生异常综合征/肿瘤(MDS)的分类、风险分层和反应评估:代表国际MDS协会(icMDS)的最新报告

IF 6.9 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
Maximilian Stahl , Jan Philipp Bewersdorf , Zhuoer Xie , Matteo Giovanni Della Porta , Rami Komrokji , Mina L. Xu , Omar Abdel-Wahab , Justin Taylor , David P. Steensma , Daniel T. Starczynowski , Mikkael A. Sekeres , Guillermo Sanz , David A. Sallman , Gail J. Roboz , Uwe Platzbecker , Mrinal M. Patnaik , Eric Padron , Olatoyosi Odenike , Stephen D. Nimer , Aziz Nazha , Amer M. Zeidan
{"title":"骨髓增生异常综合征/肿瘤(MDS)的分类、风险分层和反应评估:代表国际MDS协会(icMDS)的最新报告","authors":"Maximilian Stahl ,&nbsp;Jan Philipp Bewersdorf ,&nbsp;Zhuoer Xie ,&nbsp;Matteo Giovanni Della Porta ,&nbsp;Rami Komrokji ,&nbsp;Mina L. Xu ,&nbsp;Omar Abdel-Wahab ,&nbsp;Justin Taylor ,&nbsp;David P. Steensma ,&nbsp;Daniel T. Starczynowski ,&nbsp;Mikkael A. Sekeres ,&nbsp;Guillermo Sanz ,&nbsp;David A. Sallman ,&nbsp;Gail J. Roboz ,&nbsp;Uwe Platzbecker ,&nbsp;Mrinal M. Patnaik ,&nbsp;Eric Padron ,&nbsp;Olatoyosi Odenike ,&nbsp;Stephen D. Nimer ,&nbsp;Aziz Nazha ,&nbsp;Amer M. Zeidan","doi":"10.1016/j.blre.2023.101128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The guidelines for classification, prognostication, and response assessment of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) have all recently been updated. In this report on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS) we summarize these developments. We first critically examine the updated World Health Organization (WHO) classification and the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of MDS. We then compare traditional and molecularly based risk MDS risk assessment tools. Lastly, we discuss limitations of criteria in measuring therapeutic benefit and highlight how the International Working Group (IWG) 2018 and 2023 response criteria addressed these deficiencies and are endorsed by the icMDS. We also address the importance of patient centered care by discussing the value of quality-of-life assessment. We hope that the reader of this review will have a better understanding of how to classify MDS, predict clinical outcomes and evaluate therapeutic outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56139,"journal":{"name":"Blood Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Classification, risk stratification and response assessment in myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS): A state-of-the-art report on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS)\",\"authors\":\"Maximilian Stahl ,&nbsp;Jan Philipp Bewersdorf ,&nbsp;Zhuoer Xie ,&nbsp;Matteo Giovanni Della Porta ,&nbsp;Rami Komrokji ,&nbsp;Mina L. Xu ,&nbsp;Omar Abdel-Wahab ,&nbsp;Justin Taylor ,&nbsp;David P. Steensma ,&nbsp;Daniel T. Starczynowski ,&nbsp;Mikkael A. Sekeres ,&nbsp;Guillermo Sanz ,&nbsp;David A. Sallman ,&nbsp;Gail J. Roboz ,&nbsp;Uwe Platzbecker ,&nbsp;Mrinal M. Patnaik ,&nbsp;Eric Padron ,&nbsp;Olatoyosi Odenike ,&nbsp;Stephen D. Nimer ,&nbsp;Aziz Nazha ,&nbsp;Amer M. Zeidan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.blre.2023.101128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The guidelines for classification, prognostication, and response assessment of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) have all recently been updated. In this report on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS) we summarize these developments. We first critically examine the updated World Health Organization (WHO) classification and the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of MDS. We then compare traditional and molecularly based risk MDS risk assessment tools. Lastly, we discuss limitations of criteria in measuring therapeutic benefit and highlight how the International Working Group (IWG) 2018 and 2023 response criteria addressed these deficiencies and are endorsed by the icMDS. We also address the importance of patient centered care by discussing the value of quality-of-life assessment. We hope that the reader of this review will have a better understanding of how to classify MDS, predict clinical outcomes and evaluate therapeutic outcomes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Blood Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Blood Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268960X23000899\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268960X23000899","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

骨髓增生异常综合征/肿瘤(MDS)的分类、预后和疗效评估指南最近都进行了更新。在本报告中,我们代表国际MDS联盟(icMDS)总结了这些发展。我们首先严格检查更新的世界卫生组织(WHO)分类和国际共识分类(ICC) MDS。然后,我们比较了传统的和基于分子的风险MDS风险评估工具。最后,我们讨论了衡量治疗益处标准的局限性,并强调了国际工作组(IWG) 2018年和2023年反应标准如何解决这些缺陷并得到icMDS的认可。我们还通过讨论生活质量评估的价值来解决以患者为中心的护理的重要性。我们希望这篇综述的读者能够更好地了解如何对MDS进行分类,预测临床结果和评估治疗结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Classification, risk stratification and response assessment in myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS): A state-of-the-art report on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS)

The guidelines for classification, prognostication, and response assessment of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) have all recently been updated. In this report on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS) we summarize these developments. We first critically examine the updated World Health Organization (WHO) classification and the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of MDS. We then compare traditional and molecularly based risk MDS risk assessment tools. Lastly, we discuss limitations of criteria in measuring therapeutic benefit and highlight how the International Working Group (IWG) 2018 and 2023 response criteria addressed these deficiencies and are endorsed by the icMDS. We also address the importance of patient centered care by discussing the value of quality-of-life assessment. We hope that the reader of this review will have a better understanding of how to classify MDS, predict clinical outcomes and evaluate therapeutic outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Blood Reviews
Blood Reviews 医学-血液学
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
1.40%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Blood Reviews, a highly regarded international journal, serves as a vital information hub, offering comprehensive evaluations of clinical practices and research insights from esteemed experts. Specially commissioned, peer-reviewed articles authored by leading researchers and practitioners ensure extensive global coverage across all sub-specialties of hematology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信