The mds Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mds Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mds and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mds content recommended for you
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of rare blood cancers and therefore have varying clinical outcomes. Some patients have mild disease and live relatively long, while others are affected more severely and may progress to acute myeloid leukemia. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the patients with a higher likelihood of progression and to treat them appropriately. The revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) is the main clinical algorithm used globally to inform both risk stratification and treatment decisions for patients with MDS. It considers the clinical features (hemoglobin levels, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, percentage of bone marrow [BM] blasts), the five cytogenetic categories (very good, good, intermediate, poor, very poor), and age adjustment to stratify patients into one of five risk categories that can then inform subsequent treatment decisions. However, the IPSS-R does not currently include the use of molecular results. To address this, the International Working Group for the Prognosis of MDS (IWG-PM) have recently designed and validated a new risk scoring system—the IPSS-Molecular—that incorporates molecular diagnostic testing into the risk stratification.
The development and validation results for the IPPS-Molecular were presented by Elli Papaemmanuil1 during the 16th International Congress on Myelodysplastic Syndromes, and are summarized below.
Overall, 3,324 patients with MDS with high quality peri-diagnostic samples and good clinical annotation were ascertained globally across 25 centers.
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of the training cohort*
*Data adapted from Papaemmanuil E, 2021.1 |
|
Characteristic |
n = 2,957 |
---|---|
Median follow-up, years |
3.8 |
Age at diagnosis, years (95th percentile range) |
72 (39–88) |
Median bone marrow blasts, % (95th percentile range) |
3 (0–16) |
Median hemoglobin, g/dL (range) |
10 (6–14) |
Platelet count ×109/L (range) |
130 (13–542) |
The linear encoding of clinical features as continuous variables captured the risk representation for the percentage of BM blasts and hemoglobin levels. However, there was a cap in risk for platelet count, which occurred at 250 × 109/L.
The correlation of specific genes with three endpoints—LFS, overall survival (OS) and AML-transformation (AML-t)—allowed for the evaluation of genes that should be included in the IPSS-Molecular.
Of note:
Neither variant allele fraction estimates nor gene-to-gene interactions improved model discrimination in terms of C-index for LFS, so were not included in the model. However, as the number of driver events can have additive effects on outcome, the approach taken by the IWG-PM was to exclude the 21 genes already captured in the main model, but include those that were recurrent in the data set, were associated with adverse outcomes, and had additive risk effects.
Figure 1. Percentage of patients in the training cohort with residual mutated genes*
*Data adapted from Papaemmanuil E, 2021.1
All four factors mentioned above (clinical features, cytogenetic features, gene mutations with main effects, and gene mutations with residual effects) were combined to develop a reproducible formula to derive patient-specific risk scores, necessary for the adoption of IPSS-Molecular into practical and interpretable clinical frameworks.
Figure 2. Percentage of patients across each strata in the IPSS-Molecular*
IPSS; International Prognostic Scoring System.
*Data adapted from Papaemmanuil E, 2021.1
Mapping of the IPSS-R to the IPSS-Molecular using 5-5 category mapping (by combining the moderate–high and moderate–low categories in IPSS-Molecular) showed that 46% of patients were restratified.
Despite enrichment in the higher-risk patients with MDS, there was an equally good separation across the risk strata in terms of LFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p < 0.0001), and a significant increase in C-index for model discrimination (LFS, OS, and leukemic transformation; compared to IPSS-R). The proportion of patients that were restratified from the IPPS-R strata were also validated.
Historically, male patients with MDS have been shown to have worse clinical outcomes compared with female patients as they have an enrichment for genes that are associated with higher risk. However, the IPSS-Molecular was shown to be equally applicable to males and females; therefore, sex is not a cofounder for the IPSS-Molecular stratification.
In general, patients with therapy-related MDS had worse IPSS-Molecular scores, and an enrichment in very high- and high-risk groups compared to those with de novo MDS. However, there was no difference between the observed trajectories in terms of OS and LFS between the two groups.
The IPSS-Molecular clinical decision support tool (calculator) has been developed to enable the incorporation of user-specific variables for each patient, including their unique clinical and molecular features, to generate a patient-specific risk score. The IPSS-Molecular is the first model to deliver a generalizable and reproducible personalized risk score, and is applicable across gender and MDS types.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content