Validation of the 5th edition of the World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification guidelines for TP53-mutated myeloid neoplasm in an independent international cohort.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Shah Mithun Vinod, Hung Kevin, Baranwal Anmol, Wechalekar Gauri, Al-Kali Aref, Toop Carla R, Greipp Patricia, Kutyna Monika M, Matin Aasiya, Ladon Dariusz, Saliba Antoine, Chen Dong, Begna Kebede, Brown Anna, Rud Danielle, Litzow Mark R, Hogan William J, Bardy Peter, Badar Talha, Kumar Sharad, Yeung David T, Patnaik Mrinal M, Foran James M, He Rong, Gangat Naseema, Hefazi Mehrdad, Scott Hamish S, Arana Yi Cecilia Y, Alkhateeb Hassan, Mangaonkar Abhishek A, Thomas Daniel, Hahn Christopher N, Orazi Attilio, Arber Daniel A, Kok Chung Hoow, Tefferi Ayalew, Hiwase Devendra
Аннотация
The World Health Organization (WHO-5) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) acknowledge the poor prognosis of TP53-mutated (TP53mut) myeloid neoplasm (MN). However, there are substantial differences between the two classifications that may lead to under- or overestimation of the prognostic risk. We retrospectively applied WHO-5 and ICC to 603 MN cases harboring TP53mut (variant allele frequency, VAF ≥ 2%). WHO-5 and ICC would not classify 64% and 20% of these cases as TP53mut MN, respectively. Moreover, of those classified, 67.5% would be classified discrepantly. Primary drivers of discrepancies included: (i) prognostic importance of TP53mut acute myeloid leukemia (AML), (ii) interaction of the blast percentage and allelic status, (iii) 17p.13.1 deletion detected by cytogenetics, (iv) complex karyotype (CK) as multi-hit equivalent, and (v) TP53mut VAF threshold, we analyzed survival outcomes of each of these groups with an aim to provide clarity. TP53mut AML was associated with significantly poor survival compared to TP53-wild type TP53wt AML, myelodysplasia-related (AML, MR 4.7 vs. 18.3 months; P < 0.0001), supporting its inclusion within TP53mut MN as a distinct subentity. Secondly, the survival of TP53mut with blast 10-19% was poor regardless of the allelic status. Thirdly, for cases with a single TP53mut with VAF < 50%, 17p13.1 del or CK serve as practical surrogates of biallelic inactivation, obviating the need for an additional copy number analysis. Finally, TP53mut AML, MDS multi-hit/multi-hit equivalent with VAF < 10% had significantly poorer survival compared to TP53mut MDS VAF < 10% without CK and 17p del, and were comparable to those with VAF ≥ 10% (14.1 vs. 48.8 vs.7.8 months, P < 0.0001). Collectively, these findings address key areas of contention and provide valuable insights that will guide future revisions of the WHO and ICC classifications.