Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
September 20, 2023American Journal of HematologyOpen Access

Comparison of the prognostic predictive value of Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System and Revised International Prognostic Scoring System in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelodysplastic neoplasms

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Authors

TYTingting YangBJBaoqin JiangYLYi Luo

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Multicenter cohort study reveals superior prognostic accuracy of IPSS-M over IPSS-R in transplant recipients, highlighting improved risk stratification for mutated myelodysplastic neoplasms.

Key Points

  • To evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M) versus the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) in patients with myelodysplastic neoplasms undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
  • Conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 341 adult patients with myelodysplastic neoplasms across 11 bone marrow transplant centers in China between January 2017 and October 2022.
  • Profiled clinical parameters, cytogenetic abnormalities, and 31 IPSS-M-associated somatic gene mutations in patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (67.7% haploidentical HSCT) with a median follow-up of 29.2 months among survivors.
  • IPSS-M reclassified 49.0% (n = 167) of patients from IPSS-R categories, demonstrating superior discrimination for overall survival (p = .032 vs. p = .200) and leukemia-free survival (p = .0029 vs. p = .0085).
  • At 3 years, IPSS-M showed higher concordance indices than IPSS-R for overall survival (0.684, 95% CI 0.612–0.757 vs. 0.612, 95% CI 0.535–0.688) and leukemia-free survival (0.699, 95% CI 0.629–0.769 vs. 0.641, 95% CI 0.568–0.714).
  • In the mutated subgroup (n = 231), very-high-risk IPSS-M status independently predicted inferior overall survival in multivariable analysis (HR 3.02, 95% CI 1.05–8.66, p = .004), while neither scoring system stratified survival in patients lacking detectable mutations.

Cite This Study

Yang et al. (2023) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a70f2e626a7f98052dd658ahttps://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.27099
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Prognostic impact of pre-transplant IPSS-m risk downstaging in Myelodysplastic Syndromes2025
  2. 2Validation of the Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M) for myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) and comparison with the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) in Chinese Population: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.2024 · 1 citations
  3. 3Integrating AIPSS‐MF and molecular predictors: A comparative analysis of prognostic models for myelofibrosis2024 · 2 citations
  4. 4Impacts of IPSS-m and conditioning intensity in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant for patients with myelodysplasia neoplasms2025
  5. 5Integrated machine learning-based prognostic models for patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes/neoplasms (MDS)2025