Comparison of Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System and MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET Prognostic Model for Prediction of Outcome in Polycythemia Vera and Essential Thrombocythemia Myelofibrosis after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation.


Journal

Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
ISSN: 1523-6536
Titre abrégé: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9600628

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2019
Historique:
received: 20 02 2019
accepted: 20 03 2019
pubmed: 2 4 2019
medline: 9 4 2020
entrez: 2 4 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We aimed to validate the MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET prognostic model (MYSEC-PM) in 159 patients with myelofibrosis secondary to polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry undergoing transplantation from matched siblings or unrelated donors. Furthermore, we aimed to test its prognostic performance in comparison with the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS). Score performance was analyzed using the concordance index (C): the probability that a patient who experienced an event had a higher risk score than a patient who did not (C > .5 suggesting predictive ability). Median follow-up of the total cohort was 41 months (range, 34 to 54), 45 months in post-PV and 38 months in post-ET myelofibrosis. Survival at 1, 2, and 4 years was 70% (95% CI, 63% to 77%), 61% (95% CI, 53% to 69%), and 52% (95% CI, 43% to 61%) for the total cohort; 70% (95% CI, 59% to 80%), 61% (95% CI, 49% to 73%), and 51% (95% CI, 38% to 64%) for post-PV; and 71% (95% CI, 61% to 81%), 61% (95% CI, 50% to 72%), and 54% (95% CI, 42% to 66%) for post-ET myelofibrosis (P = .78). Overall, the DIPSS was not significantly predictive of outcome (P = .28). With respect to the MYSEC-PM, overall survival at 4 years was 69% for the low-risk, 55% for the intermediate 1-risk, 47% for the intermediate 2-risk, and 22% (0% to 45%) for the high-risk groups. The prognostic model was predictive of survival overall (P = .05), whereas groups with intermediate 2 and high risk showed no significant difference (P = .44). Assessment of prognostic utility yielded a C-index of .575 (95% CI, .502 to .648) for the DIPSS, whereas assessment of the MYSEC-PM resulted in a C-statistics of .636 (95% CI, .563 to .708), indicating improvement in prediction of post-transplant survival using the new MYSEC-PM. In addition, transplantations from an unrelated donor in comparison with an HLA-identical sibling showed worse outcome (P = .04), and transplant recipients seropositive for cytomegalovirus in comparison with seronegative recipients (P = .01) showed worse survival. In conclusion, incorporating transplant-specific and clinical and mutational information together with the MYSEC-PM may enhance risk stratification.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30930192
pii: S1083-8791(19)30208-3
doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.03.024
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e204-e208

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Nico Gagelmann (N)

University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Diderik-Jan Eikema (DJ)

EBMT Statistical Unit Data Office, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Liesbeth C de Wreede (LC)

EBMT Statistical Unit Data Office, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Linda Koster (L)

EBMT Data Office, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Christine Wolschke (C)

University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Renate Arnold (R)

Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.

Lothar Kanz (L)

Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Grant McQuaker (G)

Gartnaval General Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Tony Marchand (T)

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes, Rennes, France.

Gerard Socié (G)

Hôpital St. Louis, Paris, France.

Jean Henri Bourhis (JH)

Gustave Roussy, Institut de Cancérologie, Villejuif, France.

Mohamad Mohty (M)

Sorbonne University and INSERM UMRs 938, Paris, France.

Jan J Cornelissen (JJ)

Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Patrice Chevallier (P)

CHU Nantes, Nantes, France.

Paolo Bernasconi (P)

Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.

Matthias Stelljes (M)

University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Pierre-Simon Rohrlich (PS)

CHU Nice, Hôpital de l`ARCHET I, Nice, France.

Renato Fanin (R)

Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Udine, Udine, Italy.

Jürgen Finke (J)

University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Johan Maertens (J)

University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.

Didier Blaise (D)

Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France.

Maija Itälä-Remes (M)

HUCH Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki, Finland.

Hélène Labussière-Wallet (H)

Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Lyon, France.

Marie Robin (M)

Hôpital St. Louis, Paris, France.

Donal McLornan (D)

Department of Haematology, Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Yves Chalandon (Y)

Service d'Hématologie Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève Geneva, Switzerland.

Ibrahim Yakoub-Agha (I)

CHU de Lille, Lille, France.

Nicolaus Kröger (N)

University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: b.ramme@uke.de.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH