Figure 1:
G8 score.
Figure 2:
GAH score.
Table 1:
Comparison between frail and non-frail patient regarding demographic data, comorbidities and risk category.
| No. = 32 | Total | NF | F | Test value | P-value | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. = 16 | No. = 16 | ||||||
| Age | Mean ± SD | 64.94 ± 6.14 | 62.56 ± 3.93 | 67.31 ± 7.1 | −2.566• | 0.016 | S |
| Range | 60 – 86 | 60 – 75 | 60 – 86 | ||||
| DM | No | 25 (78.1%) | 15 (93.8%) | 10 (62.5%) | 4.571* | 0.033 | S |
| Yes | 7 (21.9%) | 1 (6.2%) | 6 (37.5%) | ||||
| HTN | No | 13 (40.6%) | 10 (62.5%) | 3 (18.8%) | 6.348* | 0.012 | S |
| Yes | 19 (59.4%) | 6 (37.5%) | 13 (81.2%) | ||||
| Viral hepatitis | No | 29 (90.6%) | 14 (87.5%) | 15 (93.8%) | 0.368* | 0.544 | NS |
| Yes | 3 (9.4%) | 2 (12.5%) | 1 (6.3%) | ||||
| Favorable | 5 (17.2%) | 1 (6.2%) | 4 (30.8%) | ||||
| Cytogenetics | Intermediate | 23 (79.3%) | 15 (93.8%) | 8 (61.5%) | 4.670* | 0.097 | NS |
| Adverse | 1 (3.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | ||||
Table 2:
Treatment protocols used in all patients.
| Treatment Protocol | Total | Percentage | F | NF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2+5 | 10 | 31.25% | 4 | 6 |
| 2+7 | 1 | 3.12% | 0 | 1 |
| 3+7 | 7 | 21.87% | 0 | 7 |
| Oral Etoposide | 1 | 3.12% | 1 | 0 |
| PETHEMA Induction | 4 | 12.5% | 3 | 1 |
| S/C Cytarabine | 6 | 18.75% | 5 | 1 |
| Supportive Treatment | 3 | 9.37% | 3 | 0 |
Table 3:
Comparison between frail and non-frail patient regarding incidence of complications, ECOG performance and hospitalization.
| F | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. = 16 | No. = 16 | |||||
| Complications | NF | 21 (65.6%) | 10 (62.5%) | 11 (68.8%) | 0.139* | 0.710 |
| Pneumonia | 8 (25.0%) | 6 (37.5%) | 2 (12.5%) | 2.667* | 0.102 | |
| Abscess | 7 (21.9%) | 4 (25.0%) | 3 (18.8%) | 0.183* | 0.669 | |
| ECOG score | Sepsis | 7 (21.9%) | 2 (12.5%) | 5 (31.2%) | 1.646* | 0.200 |
| Median (IQR) | 1 (0 – 2) | 0 (0 – 1) | 2 (2 – 3) | −4.589≠ | <0.001 | |
| Range | 0 – 4 | 0 – 1 | 1 – 4 | |||
| Hospitalization | Median (IQR) | 22.5 (17 – 31.5) | 27.5 (21.5 – 33) | 17.5 (11 – 23) | −2.603≠ | 0.009 |
| Range | 5 – 60 | 15 – 60 | 5 – 50 |
Table 4:
Comparison between frail and non-frail patient regarding survival at one month, three and six months.
| F | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. (%) | |||||
| Re-evaluation after one month | CR | 7 (43.8%) | 0 (0.0%) | 15.209 | 0.002 |
| PR | 5 (31.2%) | 2 (12.5%) | |||
| R | 4 (25.0%) | 9 (56.2%) | |||
| Died | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (31.2%) | |||
| Re-evaluation after 3 months | Alive | 16 (100.0%) | 7 (43.8%) | 12.522 | <0.001 |
| Died | 0 (0.0%) | 9 (56.2%) | |||
| Re-evaluation after 6 months | Alive | 12 (75.0%) | 3 (18.8%) | 10.165 | 0.001 |
| Died | 4 (25.0%) | 13 (81.2%) |
Figure 3:
Cumulative survival curve in frail and non-frail patients using G8 score.
Figure (4):
Cumulative survival curve in frail and non-frail patients using GAH score.