Development and validation of a disease risk stratification system for patients with haematological malignancies: a retrospective cohort study of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry.
Journal
The Lancet. Haematology
ISSN: 2352-3026
Titre abrégé: Lancet Haematol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101643584
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
28
08
2020
revised:
10
11
2020
accepted:
12
11
2020
pubmed:
27
2
2021
medline:
10
3
2021
entrez:
26
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Diagnosis and remission status at the time of allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) are the principal determinants of overall survival following transplantation. We sought to develop a contemporary disease-risk stratification system (DRSS) that accounts for heterogeneous transplantation indications. In this retrospective cohort study we included 55 histology and remission status combinations across haematological malignancies, including acute leukaemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and myeloproliferative and myelodysplastic disorders. A total of 47 265 adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who received an allogeneic HSCT between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2016, and were reported to the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry were included. We divided EBMT patients into derivation (n=25 534), tuning (n=18 365), and geographical validation (n=3366) cohorts. Disease combinations were ranked in a multivariable Cox regression for overall survival in the derivation cohort, cutoff for risk groups were evaluated for the tuning cohort, and the selected system was tested on the geographical validation cohort. An independent single-centre US cohort of 660 patients transplanted between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2015 was used to externally validate the results. The DRSS model stratified patients in the derivation cohort (median follow-up was 2·1 years [IQR 1·0-3·2]) into five risk groups with increasing mortality risk: low risk (reference group), intermediate-1 (hazard ratio for overall survival 1·26 [95% CI 1·17-1·36], p<0·0001), intermediate-2 (1·53 [1·42-1·66], p<0·0001), high (2·03 [1·86-2·22], p<0·0001), and very high (2·87 [2·63-3·13], p<0·0001). DRSS levels were also associated with a stepwise increase in risk across the tuning and geographical validation cohort. In the external validation cohort (median follow-up was 5·7 years [IQR 4·5-7·1]), the DRSS scheme separated patients into 4 risk groups associated with increasing risk of mortality: intermediate-2 risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1·34 [95% CI 1·04-1·74], p=0·025), high risk (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·39-2·95], p=0·00023) and very-high risk (HR 2·26 [95% CI 1·62-3·15], p<0·0001) patients compared with the low risk and intermediate-1 risk group (reference group). Across all cohorts, between 64% and 65% of patients were categorised as having intermediate-risk disease by a previous prognostic system (ie, the disease-risk index [DRI]). The DRSS reclassified these intermediate-risk DRI patients, with 855 (6%) low risk, 7111 (51%) intermediate-1 risk, 5700 (41%) intermediate-2 risk, and 375 (3%) high risk or very high risk of 14 041 patients in a subanalysis combining the tuning and internal geographic validation cohorts. The DRI projected 2-year overall survival was 62·1% (95% CI 61·2-62·9) for these 14 041 patients, while the DRSS reclassified them into finer prognostic groups with overall survival ranging from 45·7% (37·4-54·0; very high risk patients) to 73·1% (70·1-76·2; low risk patients). The DRSS is a novel risk stratification tool including disease features related to histology, genetic profile, and treatment response. The model should serve as a benchmark for future studies. This system facilitates the interpretation and analysis of studies with heterogeneous cohorts, promoting trial-design with more inclusive populations. The Varda and Boaz Dotan Research Center for Hemato-Oncology Research, Tel Aviv University.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diagnosis and remission status at the time of allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) are the principal determinants of overall survival following transplantation. We sought to develop a contemporary disease-risk stratification system (DRSS) that accounts for heterogeneous transplantation indications.
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective cohort study we included 55 histology and remission status combinations across haematological malignancies, including acute leukaemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and myeloproliferative and myelodysplastic disorders. A total of 47 265 adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who received an allogeneic HSCT between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2016, and were reported to the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry were included. We divided EBMT patients into derivation (n=25 534), tuning (n=18 365), and geographical validation (n=3366) cohorts. Disease combinations were ranked in a multivariable Cox regression for overall survival in the derivation cohort, cutoff for risk groups were evaluated for the tuning cohort, and the selected system was tested on the geographical validation cohort. An independent single-centre US cohort of 660 patients transplanted between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2015 was used to externally validate the results.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
The DRSS model stratified patients in the derivation cohort (median follow-up was 2·1 years [IQR 1·0-3·2]) into five risk groups with increasing mortality risk: low risk (reference group), intermediate-1 (hazard ratio for overall survival 1·26 [95% CI 1·17-1·36], p<0·0001), intermediate-2 (1·53 [1·42-1·66], p<0·0001), high (2·03 [1·86-2·22], p<0·0001), and very high (2·87 [2·63-3·13], p<0·0001). DRSS levels were also associated with a stepwise increase in risk across the tuning and geographical validation cohort. In the external validation cohort (median follow-up was 5·7 years [IQR 4·5-7·1]), the DRSS scheme separated patients into 4 risk groups associated with increasing risk of mortality: intermediate-2 risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1·34 [95% CI 1·04-1·74], p=0·025), high risk (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·39-2·95], p=0·00023) and very-high risk (HR 2·26 [95% CI 1·62-3·15], p<0·0001) patients compared with the low risk and intermediate-1 risk group (reference group). Across all cohorts, between 64% and 65% of patients were categorised as having intermediate-risk disease by a previous prognostic system (ie, the disease-risk index [DRI]). The DRSS reclassified these intermediate-risk DRI patients, with 855 (6%) low risk, 7111 (51%) intermediate-1 risk, 5700 (41%) intermediate-2 risk, and 375 (3%) high risk or very high risk of 14 041 patients in a subanalysis combining the tuning and internal geographic validation cohorts. The DRI projected 2-year overall survival was 62·1% (95% CI 61·2-62·9) for these 14 041 patients, while the DRSS reclassified them into finer prognostic groups with overall survival ranging from 45·7% (37·4-54·0; very high risk patients) to 73·1% (70·1-76·2; low risk patients).
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
The DRSS is a novel risk stratification tool including disease features related to histology, genetic profile, and treatment response. The model should serve as a benchmark for future studies. This system facilitates the interpretation and analysis of studies with heterogeneous cohorts, promoting trial-design with more inclusive populations.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
The Varda and Boaz Dotan Research Center for Hemato-Oncology Research, Tel Aviv University.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33636142
pii: S2352-3026(20)30394-X
doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30394-X
pmc: PMC9190021
mid: NIHMS1803853
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e205-e215Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA023766
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 7;382(19):1800-1810
pubmed: 32320566
Stat Med. 2008 Jan 30;27(2):157-72; discussion 207-12
pubmed: 17569110
Blood Adv. 2017 Jul 19;1(17):1312-1323
pubmed: 29296774
Stat Med. 2013 Dec 30;32(30):5381-97
pubmed: 24027076
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):31-42
pubmed: 30518502
Blood. 2020 May 14;135(20):1739-1749
pubmed: 32160294
Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar;6(3):e132-e143
pubmed: 30824040
Blood. 2020 May 7;135(19):1650-1660
pubmed: 32076701
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Mar 21;144(6):407-14
pubmed: 16549853
Blood Adv. 2019 Jun 25;3(12):1881-1890
pubmed: 31221661
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 20;38(12):1273-1283
pubmed: 31860405
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 8;375(10):944-53
pubmed: 27602666
Blood. 2012 Jul 26;120(4):905-13
pubmed: 22709687
Blood. 2014 Jun 5;123(23):3664-71
pubmed: 24744269
Haematologica. 2017 May;102(5):865-873
pubmed: 28126965
Cancer. 2009 Oct 15;115(20):4715-26
pubmed: 19642176
Cancer. 2016 Oct;122(19):2941-51
pubmed: 27309127
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021 Jan;56(1):218-224
pubmed: 32724200
Am J Hematol. 2018 Jun;93(6):769-777
pubmed: 29536560
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 06;13:33
pubmed: 23496923
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 May;24(5):1079-1087
pubmed: 29325829
Biometrics. 2008 Dec;64(4):1263-9
pubmed: 18325074
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Jul 13;3(7):e170580
pubmed: 28494052
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 1;33(31):3641-9
pubmed: 26304885
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 1;33(28):3152-61
pubmed: 26261255
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):W1-73
pubmed: 25560730
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 1;33(28):3144-51
pubmed: 26240227
Lancet Haematol. 2019 Nov;6(11):e573-e584
pubmed: 31477550
Lancet. 2002 Apr 13;359(9314):1309-10
pubmed: 11965278
Blood. 2017 Jan 26;129(4):424-447
pubmed: 27895058