Hallo Volker, guck mal - habe folgendes gefunden:
2011:
bloodjournal.org/content/118/3/529?variant=full-text
Zitat:
-response was assessed after induction and 90 days after transplantation with the use of criteria from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation6 modified to include nCR and VGPR. Briefly, CR required the absence of detectable M-component in serum and urine by IF on ? 2 measurements during ? 6 weeks, together with < 5% plasma cells in the BM. If the EP was negative but the IF was positive, the response was classified as nCR. VGPR was defined by a ? 90%-99% reduction in M-component levels with positive EP, whereas decreases between 50% and 90% were considered as PR. The remaining patients were considered as nonresponders, and a distinction was made between cases with progressive disease (PD) and patients with stable disease (SD). In patients with VGPR, PR, or SD an increase of > 50% for the lowest M-component level previously achieved was required to consider progression. For patients in nCR a positive EP was required to constitute relapse; in patients with CR relapse was defined by recurrence of detectable M-component on IF, even if EP remained negative, excluding oligoclonal immune reconstitution. For all therapeutic steps, the reference M-protein level was that at onset of therapy.
Progression-free survival (PFS) was measured from start of treatment to date of progression, relapse, or death. Patients who had not progressed or relapsed were censored on the last date they were known to be alive and progression free. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from start of treatment to date of death or last visit.
Irgendwann wurde NCR und vgpR zusammengeschlagen und sCR ist dazugekommen. Wahrscheinlich war das nicht von Dauer.
Hier übrigens noch ein Abschnitt aus dem Artikel von Februar im Beacon, den man schnell mal überliest:
However, the researchers point out that the achievement of a stringent complete response is
only one of many markers that influence the prognosis of a myeloma patient. Other patient-related and disease-related factors, such as the durability of response, need to be considered. (These perspectives are echoed in a Beacon opinion column written by one of the current study’s co-authors, Dr. S. Vincent Rajkumar.)
Dann kann man ja den Artikel dazu fast auch in der Pfeife rauchen...sozusagen, .....obwohl es natürlich stimmen muss, dass eine tiefe Response bei gleichem Ausgangspunkt zu einer besseren Ausgangslage führt.
