185例who定义的原发性血小板增多症患者的血栓风险评估:单中心经验

R. Dambrauskienė, R. Gerbutavičius, E. Juozaitytė, R. Gerbutavičienė
{"title":"185例who定义的原发性血小板增多症患者的血栓风险评估:单中心经验","authors":"R. Dambrauskienė, R. Gerbutavičius, E. Juozaitytė, R. Gerbutavičienė","doi":"10.5114/wo.2015.54083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thrombosis risk in essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients can be assessed using different prognostic systems. Conventional risk factors include age more than 60 years and history of previous thrombosis. In addition, other factors such as JAK2 V617F mutations, cardiovascular risk factors, leukocytosis more than 11 × 109/l, thrombophilic factors and platelet count more than 1500 × 109/l are used in different hematology centers as high-risk features for thrombosis. Our study compared different risk model groups for thrombosis in 185 WHO-defined ET patients at the Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Klinikos. We found that patient distribution in low, intermediate- and high-risk groups varies using different risk stratification models. The biggest difference in risk assignment is evident in patients who are older than 60 years and have no other risk factors and in patients who are younger than 60 years but have other risk factors. This observation suggests that new prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to better stratify patients at risk for thrombosis.","PeriodicalId":10652,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Oncology","volume":"92 1","pages":"396 - 399"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thrombotic risk assessment in 185 WHO-defined essential thrombocythemia patients: single center experience\",\"authors\":\"R. Dambrauskienė, R. Gerbutavičius, E. Juozaitytė, R. Gerbutavičienė\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/wo.2015.54083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Thrombosis risk in essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients can be assessed using different prognostic systems. Conventional risk factors include age more than 60 years and history of previous thrombosis. In addition, other factors such as JAK2 V617F mutations, cardiovascular risk factors, leukocytosis more than 11 × 109/l, thrombophilic factors and platelet count more than 1500 × 109/l are used in different hematology centers as high-risk features for thrombosis. Our study compared different risk model groups for thrombosis in 185 WHO-defined ET patients at the Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Klinikos. We found that patient distribution in low, intermediate- and high-risk groups varies using different risk stratification models. The biggest difference in risk assignment is evident in patients who are older than 60 years and have no other risk factors and in patients who are younger than 60 years but have other risk factors. This observation suggests that new prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to better stratify patients at risk for thrombosis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Oncology\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"396 - 399\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/wo.2015.54083\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/wo.2015.54083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

原发性血小板增多症(ET)患者的血栓形成风险可以使用不同的预后系统进行评估。传统的危险因素包括60岁以上的年龄和既往血栓病史。此外,JAK2 V617F突变、心血管危险因素、白细胞超过11 × 109/l、嗜血栓因子、血小板超过1500 × 109/l等其他因素被不同血液学中心作为血栓形成的高危特征。我们的研究比较了立陶宛Kaunas Klinikos卫生科学大学医院185名who定义的ET患者血栓形成的不同风险模型组。我们发现,使用不同的风险分层模型,低、中、高风险组的患者分布各不相同。在年龄大于60岁且没有其他危险因素的患者和年龄小于60岁但有其他危险因素的患者中,风险分配的最大差异是明显的。这一观察结果表明,需要新的前瞻性随机临床试验来更好地对血栓形成风险患者进行分层。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Thrombotic risk assessment in 185 WHO-defined essential thrombocythemia patients: single center experience
Thrombosis risk in essential thrombocythemia (ET) patients can be assessed using different prognostic systems. Conventional risk factors include age more than 60 years and history of previous thrombosis. In addition, other factors such as JAK2 V617F mutations, cardiovascular risk factors, leukocytosis more than 11 × 109/l, thrombophilic factors and platelet count more than 1500 × 109/l are used in different hematology centers as high-risk features for thrombosis. Our study compared different risk model groups for thrombosis in 185 WHO-defined ET patients at the Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Klinikos. We found that patient distribution in low, intermediate- and high-risk groups varies using different risk stratification models. The biggest difference in risk assignment is evident in patients who are older than 60 years and have no other risk factors and in patients who are younger than 60 years but have other risk factors. This observation suggests that new prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to better stratify patients at risk for thrombosis.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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