A prospective evaluation of normal mean platelet volume in discriminating hyperdestructive thrombocytopenia from hypoproductive thrombocytopenia.

Bone marrow (BM) examination is the gold standard test in discriminating between hyperdestructive thrombocytopenia and hypoproductive thrombocytopenia. However, this procedure is invasive. Mean platelet volume (MPV) is simple and may be used as an alternative diagnostic test in distinguishing these two types of thrombocytopenia. All thrombocytopenic patients (platelet count: <150.0 x 10(9)/l), except those with congestive splenomegaly, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, were enrolled into the study prospectively. The mean MPV of normal Thais (7.9 fl) was tested as a cutoff value. Any thrombocytopenic patient with MPV of >7.9 fl would be presumptively diagnosed as hyperdestructive thrombocytopenia, whereas one with MPV of 7.9 fl could predict hyperdestructive thrombocytopenia with a sensitivity of 82.3% (95% CI: 70.5-90.8), a specificity of 92.5% (95% CI: 79.6-98.4), a positive predictive value of 94.4% (95% CI: 84.6-98.8), a negative predictive value of 77.1% (95% CI: 62.7-88.0), and a likelihood ratio of 11.0. In conclusion, the mean MPV of normal Thais may be used as a cutoff value in distinguishing these two types of thrombocytopenia.

CHOP versus CHOP plus ESHAP and high-dose therapy with autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation for high-intermediate-risk and high-risk aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The purpose of the study was to compare conventional cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisolone (CHOP) chemotherapy with CHOP (3 courses) plus etoposide/methylprednisolone/high-dose cytarabine/cisplatin (ESHAP), high-dose therapy (HDT), and autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation (PBPCT) as front-line treatment for poor-prognosis aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Between May 1, 1995, and April 30, 1998, 58 patients, aged 15-55 years, newly diagnosed with poor-prognosis aggressive NHL (category F-H by the Working Formulation) were enrolled. According to the age-adjusted international prognostic index, 65% of the patients were high-risk cases and 35% made up the high-intermediate group. After 3 courses of CHOP, 25 of 48 patients were randomized to continue with CHOP, and 23 were randomized to receive 2-4 cycles of ESHAP followed by HDT and PBPCT. There was no significant difference in the rate of complete remission between the two groups (36%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 18%-57% in CHOP vs. 43%, 95% CI: 23%-65% in ESHAP/HDT) (P = 0.77). With a median follow-up duration of 39 months, the 4-year failure-free survival (FFS) was superior in the ESHAP/HDT group (38%, 95% CI: 18%-58% vs. 15%, 95% CI: 4%-32%) (P = 0.04). The disease-free survival was marginally different in favor of the ESHAP/HDT arm (90%, 95% CI: 47%-98% vs. 37%, 95% CI: 7%-69%) (P = 0.06). The 4-year overall survival between the two treatment arms was comparable (51%, 95% CI: 28%-70% for ESHAP/HDT vs. 30%, 95% CI: 13%-48% for CHOP) (P = 0.25). Treatment-related mortalities were not significantly different between both groups (17%, 95% CI: 5%-39% for ESHAP/HDT vs. 8%, 95% CI: 1%-26% for CHOP) (P = 0.41). However, only 61% of the patients assigned to the ESHAP/HDT arm underwent HDT and PBPCT. As compared with CHOP, the corporate regimen of CHOP/ESHAP/HDT seems to improve the FFS in patients with newly diagnosed, poor-prognosis aggressive NHL.