Figure 3.
Overall survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis of lower-risk patients according to CPSS, CPSS-P, and Mayo-prognostic model. (A) OS analysis. Patients with OM-CMML had a significantly longer OS than did those with D-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 62.36 months; P = .038) and P-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 41.46; P = .001). (B) OS by Kaplan-Meier analysis of lower-risk patients by CPSS-P. Patients with OM-CMML did not have a significantly longer OS than did those with D-CMML (median OS: 131.81 vs 74.65 months; P = .199), but presented a significantly longer OS than did those with P-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 45.04; P = .005). (C) OS by Kaplan-Meier analysis of lower-risk patients by the Mayo prognostic model. Patients with OM-CMML had a significantly longer OS than did those with D-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 62.36 months; P = .046) and P-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 38.4; P < .001). OS was compared with 2-sided log-rank tests.

Overall survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis of lower-risk patients according to CPSS, CPSS-P, and Mayo-prognostic model. (A) OS analysis. Patients with OM-CMML had a significantly longer OS than did those with D-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 62.36 months; P = .038) and P-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 41.46; P = .001). (B) OS by Kaplan-Meier analysis of lower-risk patients by CPSS-P. Patients with OM-CMML did not have a significantly longer OS than did those with D-CMML (median OS: 131.81 vs 74.65 months; P = .199), but presented a significantly longer OS than did those with P-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 45.04; P = .005). (C) OS by Kaplan-Meier analysis of lower-risk patients by the Mayo prognostic model. Patients with OM-CMML had a significantly longer OS than did those with D-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 62.36 months; P = .046) and P-CMML (median OS, 131.81 vs 38.4; P < .001). OS was compared with 2-sided log-rank tests.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal