Figure 2
Figure 2. Survival by risk profile at diagnosis and by transplantation risk. (A) Survival of 620 registered Ph- or BCR-ABL–positive patients with CML in chronic phase categorized by risk profile at diagnosis.14 For one patient, the prognostic score was not available. The survival times of patients who received an allogeneic transplant in first chronic phase were censored at the day of transplantation. The 620 patients were later stratified according to eligibility of receiving a transplant from a related donor. The survival differences between the 3 curves were significant (log-rank test: P = .001). m.s. indicates median survival. The error bars signify 95% confidence intervals.16 (B) Survival of 247 patients who actually received an allogeneic transplant stratified for transplantation risk according to the EBMT score.15 The survival differences between the 3 curves were significant (log-rank test: P < .001). The error bars signifiy 95% confidence intervals.

Survival by risk profile at diagnosis and by transplantation risk. (A) Survival of 620 registered Ph- or BCR-ABL–positive patients with CML in chronic phase categorized by risk profile at diagnosis.14  For one patient, the prognostic score was not available. The survival times of patients who received an allogeneic transplant in first chronic phase were censored at the day of transplantation. The 620 patients were later stratified according to eligibility of receiving a transplant from a related donor. The survival differences between the 3 curves were significant (log-rank test: P = .001). m.s. indicates median survival. The error bars signify 95% confidence intervals.16  (B) Survival of 247 patients who actually received an allogeneic transplant stratified for transplantation risk according to the EBMT score.15  The survival differences between the 3 curves were significant (log-rank test: P < .001). The error bars signifiy 95% confidence intervals.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal