MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2983038788 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-130129

Predictors of Disease Progression and Survival in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndrome Secondary to Inherited Bone Marrow Failure Syndromes

2019· article· en· W2983038788 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Reena Pabari, Elisa Cohen, Geoff D.E. Cuvelier, Robert J. Klaassen, Conrad V. Fernandez, Josée Brossard, Sharon Abish, MacGregor Steele, Yves Pastore, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Meera Rayar, Vicky R. Breakey, Mariana Silva, Lawrence Jardine, Roona Sinha, Lisa Goodyear, Bruno Michon, Catherine Corriveau‐Bourque, Lillian Sung, Yeon Jung Lim, Bozana Zlateska, Yigal Dror, Michaela Cada

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of AlbertaJaneway Children's Health and Rehabilitation CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen's UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster Children's HospitalStollery Children's HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreAlberta Children's HospitalCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeKingston General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoRoyal University HospitalMontreal Children's HospitalUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioBC Children's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkSickKids Foundation
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCytopeniaMedicineInternal medicineMyelodysplastic syndromesInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemOncologyBone marrow failureBone marrowStem cellHaematopoiesisBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Inherited bone marrow failure syndromes (IBMFSs) are rare genetic disorders characterized by abnormal hematopoiesis resulting in cytopenias and increased risk of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Once patients develop MDS the only curative therapy is hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). The rate of progression from early MDS to advanced MDS and AML is variable and risk factors for progression in IBMFS patients are poorly defined. We hypothesized that certain variables could predict the likelihood of progression from early stages of IBMFS-associated MDS/clonal hematopoiesis to advanced MDS or AML, and that the type of disease progression may impact overall survival (OS). Methods Data were collected from patients prospectively enrolled in the Canadian Inherited Marrow Failure Registry (CIMFR), a collaboration of 1 adult and 16 pediatric hospitals in Canada that care for >95% of pediatric IBMFS patients. IBMFS patients were diagnosed as having a specific syndrome or unclassified IBMFS (UCIBMFS) based on published criteria from our lab and others'. Diagnostic criteria for pediatric MDS defined by Hasle et al. were used. Progression of MDS was defined as 1 or more of: (1) a new cytogenetic abnormality, (2) progression in cytopathology from refractory cytopenia (RC) or refractory cytopenia with ringed sideroblasts (RCRS) to refractory cytopenia with dysplasia (RCD), refractory cytopenia with excess blasts (RCEB) or AML, or (3) increased degree of cytopenia severity. Time to progression was described by Kaplan-Meier analysis and risk factors were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results Of 601 patients enrolled in CIMFR, 59 (9.8%) developed cytogenetic clones/MDS. Thirteen (22%) had Fanconi Anemia (FA), 13 (22%) had Shwachman-Diamond Syndrome (SDS), 10 (16.9%) had UCIBMFS, and 23 (39%) had other marrow failure syndromes (i.e. Dyskeratosis Congenita, Severe Congenital Neutropenia, Diamond Blackfan Anemia, GATA2-related disorders). The majority presented with cytogenetic clones/RC (n=45, 76%), 9 (15%) had RCEB, 3 (5%) RCD and 1 (1.7%) RCRS. The most common cytogenetic abnormalities at presentation were -7/-7q (n=18, 30%) and isochromosome 7q10 (n=7, 12%). Four patients had complex cytogenetics (6.8%). Of the patients who developed MDS, 32 (54%) went to HSCT. Patients who developed MDS had significantly worse OS (HR 3, 95% CI 2 to 6, p<0.0001), which varied by IBMFS category. MDS patients with UCIBMFS had a statistically significant lower OS compared to those without MDS (HR 5.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 18.6, p=0.004). In contrast, patients with FA had poor OS regardless of whether or not they developed MDS. Twenty four MDS patients (40%) had disease progression, with a median time to progression of 4.7 months (1.14-131). Nine patients (38%) with disease progression had FA, 5 (21%) had SDS, 4 (17%) had UC, and 6 (25%) had other marrow failure syndromes. Ten patients (42%) developed more advanced cytopathology, 10 (42%) a new cytogenetic abnormality, and 5 (20%) worsening cytopenias. Eight patients progressed from RC to RCEB, with a median time to progression of 5.7 months (1.14 to 113). Progression to more advanced cytopathology was associated with lower OS (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.0 to 7.4, p=0.046). Median time to progression of cytogenetics was 4.13 months (1.14 to 131), which was not predictive of worse OS (p=0.22). Notably, there was no difference in OS or risk of progression between the -7/-7q and isochromosome 7q groups (p=0.644). Finally, patients who progressed due to worsening cytopenias had significantly lower OS compared to those who did not (p=0.011), but numbers were small. Seventeen (71%) of the MDS patients who progressed underwent HSCT. Conclusion Development of MDS has a significant adverse impact on the OS of IBMFS patients, with disease progression occurring 4.7 months from MDS diagnosis. Progression to advanced cytopathology is associated with decreased survival, while worsening cytogenetic clones and cytopenias may not carry the same risk. Importantly, isochromosome 7q10 is also associated with a risk of progression to more severe hematological disease, and may have an impact on survival. Further analysis of additional variables (i.e. HSCT) will provide insight into the important predictors of survival and disease progression, and help to guide treatment decisions for this high-risk patient population. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,052
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,103

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,229
Écart entre enseignants0,224 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→