{"title":"儿童急性淋巴细胞白血病预后因素分析。","authors":"H J Plüss","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The analysis of clinical and hematological data for prognostic relevance in 200 children with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), diagnosed between January 1964 and December 1980, showed that the importance of single risk factors has changed due to improvements in therapy. Morphology and cytochemistry lost their prognostic value they had in those patients treated before October 1971. In the children treated in the seventies, the WBC became the most important prognostic factor, followed by infiltrate size and age. (Age was less important than infiltrates for remission duration, but more for survival.) Immunological markers were evaluated in 56 children, since 1974. Because of the small number, no significance as risk factor was found. Those 25% with E+ blasts tended to have only a slightly worse course than \"non-T-non-B\"-ALL. Treatment became a highly significant risk factor, because of the improvement in results between those patients treated with CALGB protocol 6801 and those on protocol 7111. Two steps were responsible for this: better treatment strategies, and, most important, CNS-prophylaxis (or \"sanctuary\"-treatment) in all patients. Even in the sixties, where IT methotrexate alone was given sporadically, omitting the CNS-prophylaxis represented an important risk factor. Since 1971, most patients received cranial irradiation or intermediate dose methotrexate as second mode of CNS-prophylaxis. This resulted in a significant decrease in the incidence of CNS relapse. CNS-prophylaxis mode therefore represented a significant prognostic factor, although age, WBC and infiltrates had become more important. Evaluation of the clinical and hematological data gave the following limits for an increased or lesser risk: WBC over 30.G/l: high risk, under 10.G/l: favourable. Age: below 1 year and over 10 years: high risk, 1-2 years: probably moderately increased risk. Infiltrates: no palpable hepatosplenomegaly and no lymph nodes: favourable, all palpable infiltrates: \"standard\" or increased risk. Platelets (under 30.G/l) represented a minor good risk factor. The common ALL antigen (CALLA) was not yet examined in this series, calling it a favourable factor is based on recent experience from other centers. T-markers are probably not a risk factor by themselves, but other poor prognostic signs are usually associated and of primary importance. If treatment will be based on risk classification, it is important to keep in mind that treatment improvements might change the significance of any prognostic factor completely.</p>","PeriodicalId":75904,"journal":{"name":"Helvetica paediatrica acta","volume":"42 2-3","pages":"197-247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognostic factor analysis in acute lymphocytic leukemia of childhood.\",\"authors\":\"H J Plüss\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The analysis of clinical and hematological data for prognostic relevance in 200 children with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), diagnosed between January 1964 and December 1980, showed that the importance of single risk factors has changed due to improvements in therapy. Morphology and cytochemistry lost their prognostic value they had in those patients treated before October 1971. In the children treated in the seventies, the WBC became the most important prognostic factor, followed by infiltrate size and age. (Age was less important than infiltrates for remission duration, but more for survival.) Immunological markers were evaluated in 56 children, since 1974. Because of the small number, no significance as risk factor was found. Those 25% with E+ blasts tended to have only a slightly worse course than \\\"non-T-non-B\\\"-ALL. Treatment became a highly significant risk factor, because of the improvement in results between those patients treated with CALGB protocol 6801 and those on protocol 7111. Two steps were responsible for this: better treatment strategies, and, most important, CNS-prophylaxis (or \\\"sanctuary\\\"-treatment) in all patients. Even in the sixties, where IT methotrexate alone was given sporadically, omitting the CNS-prophylaxis represented an important risk factor. Since 1971, most patients received cranial irradiation or intermediate dose methotrexate as second mode of CNS-prophylaxis. This resulted in a significant decrease in the incidence of CNS relapse. CNS-prophylaxis mode therefore represented a significant prognostic factor, although age, WBC and infiltrates had become more important. Evaluation of the clinical and hematological data gave the following limits for an increased or lesser risk: WBC over 30.G/l: high risk, under 10.G/l: favourable. Age: below 1 year and over 10 years: high risk, 1-2 years: probably moderately increased risk. Infiltrates: no palpable hepatosplenomegaly and no lymph nodes: favourable, all palpable infiltrates: \\\"standard\\\" or increased risk. Platelets (under 30.G/l) represented a minor good risk factor. The common ALL antigen (CALLA) was not yet examined in this series, calling it a favourable factor is based on recent experience from other centers. T-markers are probably not a risk factor by themselves, but other poor prognostic signs are usually associated and of primary importance. If treatment will be based on risk classification, it is important to keep in mind that treatment improvements might change the significance of any prognostic factor completely.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75904,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Helvetica paediatrica acta\",\"volume\":\"42 2-3\",\"pages\":\"197-247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1987-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Helvetica paediatrica acta\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Helvetica paediatrica acta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
对1964年1月至1980年12月诊断的200例急性淋巴细胞白血病(ALL)患儿的临床和血液学资料的预后相关性分析表明,由于治疗方法的改进,单一危险因素的重要性已经发生了变化。形态学和细胞化学对1971年10月前接受治疗的患者失去了预后价值。在70年代接受治疗的儿童中,白细胞成为最重要的预后因素,其次是浸润大小和年龄。(年龄对缓解时间的影响不如浸润程度,但对生存的影响更大。)自1974年以来,对56名儿童的免疫标志物进行了评估。由于数量少,没有发现作为危险因素的显著性。25%的E+型发作患者的病程只比“非t -非b”型all稍差。由于采用CALGB方案6801治疗的患者与采用方案7111治疗的患者之间的结果有所改善,治疗成为一个高度显著的危险因素。有两个步骤可对此负责:更好的治疗策略,以及最重要的,所有患者的中枢神经系统预防(或“庇护”治疗)。即使在60年代,偶尔只给予甲氨蝶呤,忽略cns预防也是一个重要的风险因素。自1971年以来,大多数患者接受头部照射或中剂量甲氨蝶呤作为第二种cns预防方式。这导致中枢神经系统复发的发生率显著降低。因此,cns预防模式是一个重要的预后因素,尽管年龄、白细胞计数和浸润变得更加重要。对临床和血液学数据的评估给出了增加或减少风险的以下限制:WBC超过30。G/l:高风险,低于10。G / l:有利。年龄:1岁以下和10岁以上:高危,1-2岁:可能中度增高。浸润:未见肝脾肿大,未见淋巴结:有利,所有可触及浸润:“标准”或风险增加。血小板(低于30 g /l)是一个次要的良好危险因素。常见ALL抗原(CALLA)尚未在本系列中检查,称其为有利因素是基于最近其他中心的经验。t细胞标记物本身可能不是一个危险因素,但其他不良预后体征通常是相关的,并且是最重要的。如果治疗将基于风险分类,重要的是要记住,治疗的改善可能会完全改变任何预后因素的重要性。
Prognostic factor analysis in acute lymphocytic leukemia of childhood.
The analysis of clinical and hematological data for prognostic relevance in 200 children with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), diagnosed between January 1964 and December 1980, showed that the importance of single risk factors has changed due to improvements in therapy. Morphology and cytochemistry lost their prognostic value they had in those patients treated before October 1971. In the children treated in the seventies, the WBC became the most important prognostic factor, followed by infiltrate size and age. (Age was less important than infiltrates for remission duration, but more for survival.) Immunological markers were evaluated in 56 children, since 1974. Because of the small number, no significance as risk factor was found. Those 25% with E+ blasts tended to have only a slightly worse course than "non-T-non-B"-ALL. Treatment became a highly significant risk factor, because of the improvement in results between those patients treated with CALGB protocol 6801 and those on protocol 7111. Two steps were responsible for this: better treatment strategies, and, most important, CNS-prophylaxis (or "sanctuary"-treatment) in all patients. Even in the sixties, where IT methotrexate alone was given sporadically, omitting the CNS-prophylaxis represented an important risk factor. Since 1971, most patients received cranial irradiation or intermediate dose methotrexate as second mode of CNS-prophylaxis. This resulted in a significant decrease in the incidence of CNS relapse. CNS-prophylaxis mode therefore represented a significant prognostic factor, although age, WBC and infiltrates had become more important. Evaluation of the clinical and hematological data gave the following limits for an increased or lesser risk: WBC over 30.G/l: high risk, under 10.G/l: favourable. Age: below 1 year and over 10 years: high risk, 1-2 years: probably moderately increased risk. Infiltrates: no palpable hepatosplenomegaly and no lymph nodes: favourable, all palpable infiltrates: "standard" or increased risk. Platelets (under 30.G/l) represented a minor good risk factor. The common ALL antigen (CALLA) was not yet examined in this series, calling it a favourable factor is based on recent experience from other centers. T-markers are probably not a risk factor by themselves, but other poor prognostic signs are usually associated and of primary importance. If treatment will be based on risk classification, it is important to keep in mind that treatment improvements might change the significance of any prognostic factor completely.