Annals of laboratory medicine · 2024
Assessing the Relevance of Non-molecular Prognostic Systems for Myelodysplastic Syndrome in the Era of Next-Generation Sequencing.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lincango Marco, Andreoli Verónica, Rivello Hernán García, Bender Andrea, Catalán Ana I, Rahhal Marilina, Delamer Rocío, Asinari Mariana, Orgueira Adrián Mosquera, Castro María Belén, Osorio María José Mela, Navickas Alicia, Grille Sofia, Agriello Evangelina, Arbelbide Jorge, Basquiera Ana Lisa, Belli Carolina B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M) has improved the prediction of clinical outcomes for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Scoring System for MDS (AIPSS-MDS), based on classical clinical parameters, has outperformed the IPSS, revised version (IPSS-R). For the first time, we validated the IPSS-M and other molecular prognostic models and compared them with the established IPSS-R and AIPSS-MDS models using data from South American patients.
METHODS: Molecular and clinical data from 145 patients with MDS and 37 patients with MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: Prognostic power evaluation revealed that the IPSS-M (Harrell's concordance [C]-index: 0.75, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.68) predicted overall survival better than the European MDS (EuroMDS; C-index: 0.72, AUC: 0.68) and Munich Leukemia Laboratory (MLL) (C-index: 0.70, AUC: 0.64) models. The IPSS-M prognostic discrimination was similar to that of the AIPSS-MDS model (C-index: 0.74, AUC: 0.66) and outperformed the IPSS-R model (C-index: 0.70, AUC: 0.61). Considering simplified low- and high-risk groups for clinical management, after restratifying from IPSS-R (57% and 32%, respectively, hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8; P=0.002) to IPSS-M, 12.6% of patients were upstaged, and 5% were downstaged (HR: 2.9; P=0.001). The AIPSS-MDS recategorized 51% of the low-risk cohort as high-risk, with no patients being downstaged (HR: 5.6; P<0.001), consistent with most patients requiring disease-modifying therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: The IPSS-M and AIPSS-MDS models provide more accurate survival prognoses than the IPSS-R, EuroMDS, and MLL models. The AIPSS-MDS model is a valid option for assessing risks for all patients with MDS, especially in resource-limited centers where molecular testing is not currently a standard clinical practice.
METHODS: Molecular and clinical data from 145 patients with MDS and 37 patients with MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: Prognostic power evaluation revealed that the IPSS-M (Harrell's concordance [C]-index: 0.75, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.68) predicted overall survival better than the European MDS (EuroMDS; C-index: 0.72, AUC: 0.68) and Munich Leukemia Laboratory (MLL) (C-index: 0.70, AUC: 0.64) models. The IPSS-M prognostic discrimination was similar to that of the AIPSS-MDS model (C-index: 0.74, AUC: 0.66) and outperformed the IPSS-R model (C-index: 0.70, AUC: 0.61). Considering simplified low- and high-risk groups for clinical management, after restratifying from IPSS-R (57% and 32%, respectively, hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8; P=0.002) to IPSS-M, 12.6% of patients were upstaged, and 5% were downstaged (HR: 2.9; P=0.001). The AIPSS-MDS recategorized 51% of the low-risk cohort as high-risk, with no patients being downstaged (HR: 5.6; P<0.001), consistent with most patients requiring disease-modifying therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: The IPSS-M and AIPSS-MDS models provide more accurate survival prognoses than the IPSS-R, EuroMDS, and MLL models. The AIPSS-MDS model is a valid option for assessing risks for all patients with MDS, especially in resource-limited centers where molecular testing is not currently a standard clinical practice.