Literature DB >> 26284571

Comparing the prognostic value of risk stratifying models for patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: Is one model better?

Amer M Zeidan1, Mikkael A Sekeres2, Xiao-Feng Wang2, Najla Al Ali3, Guillermo Garcia-Manero4, David P Steensma5, Gail Roboz6, John Barnard2, Eric Padron3, Amy DeZern7, Jaroslaw P Maciejewski2, Alan F List3, Rami S Komrokji3.   

Abstract

Some patients classified as having lower-risk (LR)-disease by the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) fare more poorly than predicted. We examined the prognostic utility of IPSS, the MD Anderson LR-Prognostic System (LR-PSS), and the revised IPSS (IPSS-R) in a large cohort of patients classified as having IPSS LR-MDS in the MDS Clinical Research Consortium database. Actual overall survival (OS) was assessed in patients with IPSS LR-MDS (i.e. low and intermediate-1) using Kaplan-Meier methods. Harrell's c index (HCI) and Akaike information criteria (AIC) were used to compare the models. Median OS of 1,140 eligible patients was 47 months (95% CI, 44-52). Median follow-up was 62 months. HCI values indicating the discriminatory power of the models (higher is better) were better for LR-PSS (0.74, 95% CI, 0.70-0.78) than IPSS-R (0.64, 95% CI, 0.60-0.67) and IPSS (0.64, 95% CI, 0.60-0.68). Similarly, AIC values indicating the goodness of the fit were better for LR-PSS than IPSS-R and IPSS (8,110, 8,147, and 8,150, respectively, lower is better). LR-PSS assigned 25.1% and 37.4% of patients with IPSS LR-MDS into LR-PSS Category 3 and IPSS-R Categories ≥Intermediate, respectively. Of 291 patients (25.5%) who survived ≤24 months from diagnosis, only 37.1% and 45% were classified as LR-PSS category 3 and IPSS-R categories ≥Intermediate, respectively (P = 0.06). While both LR-PSS and IPSS-R distinguish groups with varied survival outcome among patients with IPSS LR-MDS, both tools fail to identify a significant subset with poor OS. Future studies should assess whether patients identified as at increased risk will benefit from earlier interventions with disease-modifying therapies.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26284571     DOI: 10.1002/ajh.24173

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hematol        ISSN: 0361-8609            Impact factor:   10.047


  7 in total

1.  Getting personal with myelodysplastic syndromes: is now the right time?

Authors:  Nora Chokr; Alexander B Pine; Jan Philipp Bewersdorf; Rory M Shallis; Maximilian Stahl; Amer M Zeidan
Journal:  Expert Rev Hematol       Date:  2019-04-12       Impact factor: 2.929

Review 2.  Following in the footsteps of acute myeloid leukemia: are we witnessing the start of a therapeutic revolution for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes?

Authors:  Jan Philipp Bewersdorf; Amer M Zeidan
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2020-05-18

3.  Comparison of clinical outcomes and prognostic utility of risk stratification tools in patients with therapy-related vs de novo myelodysplastic syndromes: a report on behalf of the MDS Clinical Research Consortium.

Authors:  A M Zeidan; N Al Ali; J Barnard; E Padron; J E Lancet; M A Sekeres; D P Steensma; A DeZern; G Roboz; E Jabbour; G Garcia-Manero; A List; R Komrokji
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 11.528

Review 4.  Treatment of low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

Authors:  Valeria Santini
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2016-12-02

5.  Part 2: Myelodysplastic syndromes - classification systems.

Authors:  Irene Lorand-Metze; Lígia Niero-Melo; Renata Buzzini; Wanderley Marques Bernardo
Journal:  Hematol Transfus Cell Ther       Date:  2018-07-02

6.  Mutation status and burden can improve prognostic prediction of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

Authors:  Lingxu Jiang; Yingwan Luo; Shuanghong Zhu; Lu Wang; Liya Ma; Hua Zhang; Chuying Shen; Wenli Yang; Yanling Ren; Xinping Zhou; Chen Mei; Li Ye; Weilai Xu; Haiyang Yang; Chenxi Lu; Jie Jin; Hongyan Tong
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 6.716

7.  Evaluation of different scoring systems and gene mutations for the prognosis of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in Chinese population.

Authors:  Meng-Yi Du; Min Xu; Jun Deng; Lin Liu; Tao Guo; Ling-Hui Xia; Yu Hu; Heng Mei
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 4.207

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.