Long-term survivors in myelodysplastic syndromes: a report on 63 cases and comparison with short and intermediate survivors

Treatment and prognostic factors in myelodysplastic syndromes

While MDS remains an enigmatic disease, substantial progress has been made in the elucidation of its origin and the better understanding of its natural course. The advent of newer molecular and cytogenetic techniques has tremendously improved the 'older' morphological and histopathological prognostic criteria. More refined scoring systems may ultimately allow for individualized treatment programmes which will better preserve quality of life, while at the same time offer improved chances for survival and cure. Much can be expected from newer cytokines, such as thrombopoietin, stem cell factor, interleukin-11 or of the combination of different cytokines and growth factors, to alleviate MDS-symptoms and to possibly alter the course of the disease. After the initial disappointment with differentiation inducers, the availability of newer agents and/of combinations may offer better perspectives for the future. Much interest will also be generated on the use of mdr-reversal agents in the attempts to improve on chemotherapeutic efficacy. Finally, while allogeneic transplantation still remains the only option for definite cure of the disease, the spectacular advances made in the use and manipulation of autologous peripheral blood haemopoietic stem cells probably constitute the best hope for brightening the grim outlook most MDS patients still have.

Interleukin-3 plus low-dose cytosine arabinoside for advanced myelodysplasia: a pilot study. EORTC Leukemia Group

In an attempt to reestablish normal hematopoiesis in symptomatic myelodysplasia (MDS) and to show the tolerability of a combination treatment of low-dose cytosine arabinoside (LD AraC) and interleukin-3 (IL-3), we treated 31 patients (pts., median age 65 years) who had more than 10% blasts in the bone marrow (BM) and hematopoietic failure with LD AraC (2 x 10 mg/m2 sc, day 1-14) plus IL-3 (once daily sc, day 8-21) at different dose steps (1.0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 micrograms/kilogram body weight). The numbers of each 21-day cycle varied between 1 (3 pts.), 2 (6 pts.), 3 (8 pts.), 4 (1 pt.), 5 (5 pts.), and 6 (8 pts.), in total 116 cycles on an outpatient basis. Subjective tolerability was good in 20 cases (65%). Toxicities were fever (29 pts.), flu-like symptoms (17 pts.), infections (15 pts.), hepatic toxicity (10 pts.), and skin reactions (8 pts.). Overall response was seen in 13 cases (42%) and 5 complete responses (CR), while 10 pts. had stable disease (SD), 5 progressed (2 to acute leukemia), 2 were considered toxic deaths, and 1 died due to the disease. Median survival is 18 months, progression-free survival is 12.5 months (18.0 months in responding pts.), with an actuarial follow-up of 31 months. The data from this phase I/II study show that a combination of LD-AraC and IL-3 is well tolerated and that stable responses can be achieved in MDS by means of an easy outpatient therapy.

Comparison of scoring systems in primary myelodysplastic syndromes

To compare the prognostic value of scoring systems in primary myelodysplastic syndromes (pMDS), four clinicohematological systems (Rennes, Bournemouth, Düsseldorf, Pavia) and the histopathological Hannover Scoring System were applied to 415 MDS patients from the Bone Marrow Registry of Hannover Medical School. According to the FAB classification, 180 patients (43%) were diagnosed as RA, 33 (8%) as RARS, 99 (24%) as RAEB, 36 (9%) as RAEBt, and 48 (12%) as CMMOL; 19 patients (4%) were not further classified (MDS.UC). All scoring systems revealed three or four groups of patients with significantly different survival times. The ranges and standard deviations in these groups were similar but high in all scoring systems. A good differentiation between short-term survivors (< 1 year survival time) and intermediate-term survivors (1-4 years) was possible with all tested scoring systems, but the differentiation between intermediate- and long-term survivors (> 4 years) was not distinctive enough. The problem of risk assessment in the single patient is furthermore elucidated by the values of specificity and sensitivity, which were relatively low in all scoring systems tested. Best results were yielded by the Bournemouth Score for long-term survivors and the Düsseldorf and Hannover Score for intermediate- and short-term survivors. Multivariate analysis of all parameters used in the scoring systems showed the highest negative impact on survival for increase of myeloblasts, anemia, myelofibrosis, high age of the patient, and abnormal localization of immature precursors (ALIPs). Therefore, the histopathological Hannover Scoring System is not only equal to clinicohematological risk assessment in pMDS, but also includes important independent prognostic parameters. Risk assessment for the individual low-risk MDS patient using only initial parameters may be rendered impossible due to the biological nature of pMDS. Therefore, sequential analysis is needed to elucidate random events which alter the prognosis.