Comparison of Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System and MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET Prognostic Model for Prediction of Outcome in Polycythemia Vera and Essential Thrombocythemia Myelofibrosis after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System and MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET Prognostic Model for Prediction of Outcome in Polycythemia Vera and Essential Thrombocythemia Myelofibrosis after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

AU - Gagelmann, Nico

AU - Eikema, Diderik-Jan

AU - de Wreede, Liesbeth C

AU - Koster, Linda

AU - Wolschke, Christine

AU - Arnold, Renate

AU - Kanz, Lothar

AU - McQuaker, Grant

AU - Marchand, Tony

AU - Socié, Gerard

AU - Bourhis, Jean Henri

AU - Mohty, Mohamad

AU - Cornelissen, Jan J

AU - Chevallier, Patrice

AU - Bernasconi, Paolo

AU - Stelljes, Matthias

AU - Rohrlich, Pierre-Simon

AU - Fanin, Renato

AU - Finke, Jürgen

AU - Maertens, Johan

AU - Blaise, Didier

AU - Itälä-Remes, Maija

AU - Labussière-Wallet, Hélène

AU - Robin, Marie

AU - McLornan, Donal

AU - Chalandon, Yves

AU - Yakoub-Agha, Ibrahim

AU - Kröger, Nicolaus

AU - CMWP of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

N1 - Copyright © 2019 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - We aimed to validate the MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET prognostic model (MYSEC-PM) in 159 patients with myelofibrosis secondary to polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry undergoing transplantation from matched siblings or unrelated donors. Furthermore, we aimed to test its prognostic performance in comparison with the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS). Score performance was analyzed using the concordance index (C): the probability that a patient who experienced an event had a higher risk score than a patient who did not (C > .5 suggesting predictive ability). Median follow-up of the total cohort was 41 months (range, 34 to 54), 45 months in post-PV and 38 months in post-ET myelofibrosis. Survival at 1, 2, and 4 years was 70% (95% CI, 63% to 77%), 61% (95% CI, 53% to 69%), and 52% (95% CI, 43% to 61%) for the total cohort; 70% (95% CI, 59% to 80%), 61% (95% CI, 49% to 73%), and 51% (95% CI, 38% to 64%) for post-PV; and 71% (95% CI, 61% to 81%), 61% (95% CI, 50% to 72%), and 54% (95% CI, 42% to 66%) for post-ET myelofibrosis (P = .78). Overall, the DIPSS was not significantly predictive of outcome (P = .28). With respect to the MYSEC-PM, overall survival at 4 years was 69% for the low-risk, 55% for the intermediate 1-risk, 47% for the intermediate 2-risk, and 22% (0% to 45%) for the high-risk groups. The prognostic model was predictive of survival overall (P = .05), whereas groups with intermediate 2 and high risk showed no significant difference (P = .44). Assessment of prognostic utility yielded a C-index of .575 (95% CI, .502 to .648) for the DIPSS, whereas assessment of the MYSEC-PM resulted in a C-statistics of .636 (95% CI, .563 to .708), indicating improvement in prediction of post-transplant survival using the new MYSEC-PM. In addition, transplantations from an unrelated donor in comparison with an HLA-identical sibling showed worse outcome (P = .04), and transplant recipients seropositive for cytomegalovirus in comparison with seronegative recipients (P = .01) showed worse survival. In conclusion, incorporating transplant-specific and clinical and mutational information together with the MYSEC-PM may enhance risk stratification.

AB - We aimed to validate the MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET prognostic model (MYSEC-PM) in 159 patients with myelofibrosis secondary to polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry undergoing transplantation from matched siblings or unrelated donors. Furthermore, we aimed to test its prognostic performance in comparison with the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS). Score performance was analyzed using the concordance index (C): the probability that a patient who experienced an event had a higher risk score than a patient who did not (C > .5 suggesting predictive ability). Median follow-up of the total cohort was 41 months (range, 34 to 54), 45 months in post-PV and 38 months in post-ET myelofibrosis. Survival at 1, 2, and 4 years was 70% (95% CI, 63% to 77%), 61% (95% CI, 53% to 69%), and 52% (95% CI, 43% to 61%) for the total cohort; 70% (95% CI, 59% to 80%), 61% (95% CI, 49% to 73%), and 51% (95% CI, 38% to 64%) for post-PV; and 71% (95% CI, 61% to 81%), 61% (95% CI, 50% to 72%), and 54% (95% CI, 42% to 66%) for post-ET myelofibrosis (P = .78). Overall, the DIPSS was not significantly predictive of outcome (P = .28). With respect to the MYSEC-PM, overall survival at 4 years was 69% for the low-risk, 55% for the intermediate 1-risk, 47% for the intermediate 2-risk, and 22% (0% to 45%) for the high-risk groups. The prognostic model was predictive of survival overall (P = .05), whereas groups with intermediate 2 and high risk showed no significant difference (P = .44). Assessment of prognostic utility yielded a C-index of .575 (95% CI, .502 to .648) for the DIPSS, whereas assessment of the MYSEC-PM resulted in a C-statistics of .636 (95% CI, .563 to .708), indicating improvement in prediction of post-transplant survival using the new MYSEC-PM. In addition, transplantations from an unrelated donor in comparison with an HLA-identical sibling showed worse outcome (P = .04), and transplant recipients seropositive for cytomegalovirus in comparison with seronegative recipients (P = .01) showed worse survival. In conclusion, incorporating transplant-specific and clinical and mutational information together with the MYSEC-PM may enhance risk stratification.

U2 - 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.03.024

DO - 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.03.024

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 30930192

VL - 25

SP - e204-e208

JO - BIOL BLOOD MARROW TR

JF - BIOL BLOOD MARROW TR

SN - 1083-8791

IS - 6

ER -