[A comparable analysis of IPSS and IPSS-R for evaluating prognosis of XXXX ].

@entity1 @entity1778 @entity2590
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the @entity1 ' characteristics and efficacy of prognosis evaluation by International Prognosis Scoring System (IPSS) and Revised International Prognosis Scoring System (IPSS-R) in @entity1 with @entity2590 ( @entity2590 ). METHODS: Prognostic value of IPSS and IPSS-R was evaluated on clinical data from 159 @entity2590 @entity1 , according to WHO classification. RESULTS: With a median age of 44 years (range:15-80 years), @entity2590 @entity1 had the frequency of 38.56% with abnormal karyotype, including the most common abnormality +8 (20/153, 12.6%). 34 of 142 @entity1 transformed into @entity1778 . Age and the level of b2 micro-globulin were the prognostic factors by multivariate analysis and IPSS-R had a better prognostic significance. The differences in cumulative survival between IPSS subgroups were significant (P<0.05) except that between low- and intermediate I-risk group (P>0.05). There were statistical differences for IPSS-R low risk group vs high or very high risk group, and intermediate risk group vs high or very high risk group (P<0.05). IPSS-R enables IPSS subgroups re-stratification and split IPSS intermediate I-risk group into two subgroups with different prognosis. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in age of onset, distribution of prognosis scoring system subgroups and abnormal karyotype compared with those in Europe and America. The proportion of higher risk (worse than good karyotype) in IPSS-R was higher than that in Europe and America. Age and the level of b2 micro-globulin were prognostic factors. Both IPSS and IPSS-R were applicable in Chinese @entity2590 @entity1 and the latter performed better. Applying IPSS-R to re-stratify IPSS subgroups helps evaluate prognosis more accurately and improve treatment outcomes.
