MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310119465 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-169710

CCUS and Low-Risk MDS Are Inherently Similar, Sharing Clonal and Clinical Features

2022· article· en· W4310119465 sur OpenAlexaff
Christina K. Ferrone, Amy J. M. McNaughton, Iran Rashedi, Rena Buckstein, Hubert Tsui, Michael J. Rauh

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCytopeniaMyelodysplastic syndromesMedicineMyeloproliferative neoplasmInternal medicineMyeloidDysplasiaIncidence (geometry)Clinical significanceOncologyBone marrowMyelofibrosis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS) is a condition of unexplained blood cytopenia not meeting the diagnostic criteria of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Recently, the newer designation of clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) has been proposed to characterize patients with ICUS in the presence of one or more somatic mutations or copy number abnormalities. Clinically, CCUS has been associated with an increased risk of developing MDS; however, the mechanism and factors associated with evolution remain unclear. We sought to determine the molecular similarity of cytopenic cases with equivocal morphological dysplasia to bona fide MDS, as well as whether serial sequencing of ICUS and CCUS cases could identify factors that predict evolution to MDS. Methods We compared the incidence and frequency of somatic variants in 48 genes recurrently mutated in myeloid neoplasms (MNs), using targeted Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) of bone marrow genomic DNA from 193 individuals with confirmed or suspected MDS or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MDS/MPN), including sequential investigation for 28 individuals at the time of diagnosis and during follow-up. Cytopenias qualifying patients as ICUS were based on WHO laboratory diagnostic criteria: hemoglobin levels <130g/L for males or <120 g/L for females; platelet count <150x109/L; and neutrophils <1.8x109/L. MDS patients were further subclassified as low risk (MDS-LR), including "Very Low” and "Low” International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised (IPSS-R) categories; intermediate risk (MDS-IR), including "Intermediate” category; or high risk (MDS-HR), including "High” and "Very High” risk categories. Results NGS further facilitated the diagnosis of all suspicious cases, either as MN (21%), CCUS (34%), or ICUS (45%). We found that there was no significant difference in most measured clinical features between CCUS and MDS-LR. While we saw significantly increased hemoglobin and platelet counts in individuals with CCUS compared with MDS-HR (Mann-Whitney U test; p=0.003 and p=0.012, respectively), no significant differences in cell counts were seen between CCUS and the MDS-LR or MDS-IR subgroups (Table 1). There was also no difference in overall survival between CCUS and MDS-LR when adjusted for age and sex in multivariable models (HR=0.575; 95% CI=0.256-1.294; p=0.330), while MDS-HR was associated with worse overall survival when compared with CCUS (HR=2.759; 95% CI=1.274-5.975; p=0.010). We saw no significant difference in clonal phenotypes, including number of variants or variant allele frequencies (VAFs), when comparing CCUS and MDS-LR. We further classified genes mutated in at least one patient in our cohort into functional groups for further analysis. These groups included epigenetic regulators: ASXL1, BCOR, DNMT3A, EZH2, IDH1, IDH2, KDM6A, PHF6, RAD21, STAG2, TET2; splicing factors: DDX41, SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1, ZRSR2; genes involved in signal transduction: BRAF, CALR, CBL, CSF3R, FLT3, GNB1, JAK2, KIT, KRAS, MPL, NF1, NPM1, NRAS, PTPN11, SETBP1; transcription factors: CEBPA, ETV6, GATA2, RUNX1; and genes involved in DNA damage repair: PPM1D and TP53. A significantly higher number of transcription factor mutations was seen when comparing CCUS to the MDS-IR and MDS-HR groups (p=0.007 and p=0.008, respectively), but not the MDS-LR group (p=0.754). We did, however, see significant significantly lower number of splicing factor mutations in CCUS cases compared with MDS-LR (p<0.001; Figure 1). Serial sequencing revealed no significant associations between number, type, or VAF of variants initially present at ICUS or CCUS diagnosis compared to those later acquired at the time of MDS evolution. Of note, we saw an increased probability of evolution to MDS of individuals with CCUS compared to ICUS over the first 5 years (HR=3.569; 95% CI=1.029-12.380, p=0.045). Conclusions Our analyses revealed no conclusive pattern associating clonal expansion or number of variants with evolution of CCUS to MDS, perhaps further supporting the similarity of these diseases and the proposal that CCUS should be classified as low-risk MDS in the next revision of the WHO guidelines. If future studies can better associate variants in specific types of genes with progression (such as splicing factors), this may also assist in predicting the probability of evolution and thus inform management strategies. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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)0,002
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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,322
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · 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

Citations1
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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