Predictive parameters for imatinib failure in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curve for (A) Sokal score; (B) Hasford score and (C) EUTOS score in prediction of imatinib failure in patients with CML.

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curve for IMA-FAIL score in prediction of imatinib failure in patients with CML.

Table 1. Failure rates of imatinib treatment according to features.

Feature	Failure n (%)	p
Age, years
<60	51 (40.3)	0.170
≥60	10 (27.8)
Gender
Male	37 (42.5)	0.165
Female	24 (31.7)
Hemoglobin level (g/l)
<100	9 (45.0)	0.494
≥100	50 (36.8)
Leukocyte count (×10^9/l)
<100	20 (25.0)	0.001
≥100	41 (49.4)
Platelet count (×10^9/l)
<450	34 (38.6)	0.729
≥450	27 (36.0)
Eosinophils in peripheral blood (%)
0	13 (38.6)	0.854
≥1	48 (36.0)
Basophils in peripheral blood (%)
0	5 (25.0)	0.220
≥1	56 (39.2)
Blasts in peripheral blood (%)
0	18 (25.0)	0.004
≥1	43 (47.3)
Hepatomegaly
no	36 (28.3)	<0.001
yes	25 (61.8)
Splenomegaly
no	13 (26.5)	0.065
yes	48 (41.7)
ACAs During the follow-up
no	51 (34.2)	0.001
yes	10 (76.9)
Sokal score
Low	16 (27.6)	0.064
Intermediate	29 (48.3)
High	16 (35.6)
Hasford score
Low	21 (30.0)	0.236
Intermediate	33 (42.9)
High	7 (43.8)
Eutos score
Low	51 (35.9)	0.301
High	10 (47.6)

Note: Bold indicates statistically significant values. ACAs, additional cytogenetic abnormalities.