Cytogenetics in Essential Thrombocythemia: Phenotype and Molecular Correlates and Prognostic Relevance in 818 Informative Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cytogenetic abnormalities at diagnosis are relatively uncommon in essential thrombocythemia (ET). In the current study of 818 consecutive patients with ET who were fully annotated for karyotype, we describe the spectrum and prevalence of cytogenetic abnormalities at diagnosis, followed by a comprehensive assessment of phenotypic and molecular correlates and prognostic relevance. Methods The study cohort consisted of 818 consecutive patients with ET that were diagnosed according to the World health Organization 2016 criteria and underwent evaluation between 1967-2021. In order to minimize the inadvertent inclusion of patients with masked polycythemia vera, JAK2 mutated cases with hemoglobin (Hb) level >16 g/dL in women and 16.5 g/dL in men were excluded; similarly, cases with anemia defined by sex adjusted Hb level of <11 g/dL in women and <12.5 g/dL in men were also excluded, in order to avoid inadvertent inclusion of patients with prefibrotic myelofibrosis. Cytogenetic studies were performed either at or within one year of diagnosis and reported according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature. Disease status and survival information was updated in May 2021. JMP Pro 16.0.0 software package, SAS Institute, Cary, NC was utilized for all analyses. Results Prevalence and spectrum of cytogenetic abnormalities Karyotype was normal in 755 patients (92%), showed loss of Y chromosome (-Y) in 16 (2%), and showed abnormalities other than -Y in 47 (5.7%); most common abnormalities included del(20q) (n=10, 21%), trisomy 9 (n=8, 17%), trisomy 8 (n=2, 4%), del(5q) (n=2, 4%), and del(3p) (n=2, 4%). Other sole cytogenetic abnormalities were identified in 18 (38%) patients. Phenotypic and molecular correlates Abnormal karyotype, other than -Y, in comparison with normal karyotype was associated with older age (median age; 63 vs 58 years, p=0.02), lower hemoglobin level (p=0.003), and a higher incidence of arterial thrombosis prior to/at diagnosis (25% vs 13%; p=0.03). 603 patients were annotated for driver mutations; abnormal/normal/-Y frequencies were 78%/60%/71% for JAK2, 22%/26%/14% CALR, 0%/3%/0% MPL and 0%/10% /14% triple negative (p=0.31). NGS information was available in 226 patients and showed absence of ASXL1 mutation in all patients with abnormal karyotype vs 8/211 (4%) with normal karyotype vs 2/4 (50%) with -Y (p<0.0001). Disease transformation and overall-survival. At a median follow-up of 9.6 years (range; 0.01-49.4 years), a total of 96 patients (12%) underwent fibrotic transformation: 6 (13%) with abnormal karyotype, 89 (12%) with normal karyotype and 1 (6%) with -Y (p=0.77). Leukemic transformation rates were also similar with respective frequencies of 4%, 3% and 0% (p=0.71). Abnormal karyotype and -Y were associated with inferior survival with median of 12 years (range; 0.1-34) and 9 years (range; 0.01- 19.9), respectively, compared to 21 years (range; 0.01-49.4) for normal karyotype (p<0.0001) (Figure). In univariate analysis, risk factors for overall survival included abnormal karyotype (p=0.001), - Y (p=0.004), age >60 years (p<0.0001), leukocytosis >11 x10 9/L (p<0.0001), male gender (p=0.0003), and history of thrombosis (p=0.001). During multivariable analysis, abnormal karyotype other than -Y (p=0.003), age >60 years (p<0.0001), leukocytosis >11 x10 9/L (p=0.001), and male gender (p=0.01) remained significant. Additional analysis suggested individual prognostic impact for del(20q) (p=0.04) and also for trisomy 9 (p=0.09) and other abnormalities (p=0.07), with borderline significance. Conclusion The current study confirms the association of abnormal karyotype in ET with older age, lower hemoglobin level, and history of arterial thrombosis, and its mutual exclusivity with ASXL1 mutations. Our observation regarding the independent adverse impact of abnormal karyotype other than -Y, on overall survival, in the absence of association with fibrotic or leukemic transformation, requires clarification from additional studies, which should also investigate the effect of specific abnormalities. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Szuber: Novartis: Honoraria.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".