Clinical Effects of Driver Somatic Mutations on the Outcomes of Patients With Myelodysplastic Syndromes Treated With Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The genetic basis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is heterogeneous, and various combinations of somatic mutations are associated with different clinical phenotypes and outcomes. Whether the genetic basis of MDS influences the outcome of allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 401 patients with MDS or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) evolving from MDS (MDS/AML). We used massively parallel sequencing to examine tumor samples collected before HSCT for somatic mutations in 34 recurrently mutated genes in myeloid neoplasms. We then analyzed the impact of mutations on the outcome of HSCT. RESULTS: Overall, 87% of patients carried one or more oncogenic mutations. Somatic mutations of ASXL1, RUNX1, and TP53 were independent predictors of relapse and overall survival after HSCT in both patients with MDS and patients with MDS/AML (P values ranging from .003 to .035). In patients with MDS/AML, gene ontology (ie, secondary-type AML carrying mutations in genes of RNA splicing machinery, TP53-mutated AML, or de novo AML) was an independent predictor of posttransplantation outcome (P = .013). The impact of ASXL1, RUNX1, and TP53 mutations on posttransplantation survival was independent of the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). Combining somatic mutations and IPSS-R risk improved the ability to stratify patients by capturing more prognostic information at an individual level. Accounting for various combinations of IPSS-R risk and somatic mutations, the 5-year probability of survival after HSCT ranged from 0% to 73%. CONCLUSION: Somatic mutation in ASXL1, RUNX1, or TP53 is independently associated with unfavorable outcomes and shorter survival after allogeneic HSCT for patients with MDS and MDS/AML. Accounting for these genetic lesions may improve the prognostication precision in clinical practice and in designing clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".