Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Prognostic Modeling in Myelodysplastic Syndromes

  • Myelodysplastic Syndromes (D Steensma, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) are a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by the accumulation of complex genetic alterations that drive disease pathogenesis and outcome. Several prognostic models have been developed over the last two decades to risk stratify patients with MDS. These models mainly used clinical variables including blast percentage, cytopenias, cytogenetics, transfusion dependency, and age. Recently, somatic mutations in specific genes have been shown to impact overall survival in MDS and can be incorporated into established prognostic models to improve their predictive abilities. Here, we review the advantages and disadvantages of established prognostic models in MDS and the impact of emerging data regarding the incorporation of somatic mutations in risk stratification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Tefferi A, Vardiman JW. Myelodysplastic syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1872–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sekeres MA. Epidemiology, natural history, and practice patterns of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes in 2010. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2011;9:57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Garcia-Manero G. Prognosis of myelodysplastic syndromes. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2010;2010:330–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zeidan AM, Smith BD, Komrokji RS, Gore SD. Prognostication in myelodysplastic syndromes: beyond the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS). Am J Med. 2013;126:e25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Nazha A, Komrokji RS, Garcia-Manero G, et al. The efficacy of current prognostic models in predicting outcome of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes at the time of hypomethylating agent failure. Haematologica. 2016;101:e224. This is the first study to evaluate the predictive power of current prognostic models in MDS at the time of hypomethylating agent failure.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nazha A, Seastone D, Keng M, et al. The Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) is not predictive of survival in patients with secondary myelodysplastic syndromes. Leuk Lymphoma. 2015:1–12.

  7. Quintas-Cardama A, Daver N, Kim H, et al. A prognostic model of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndrome for predicting survival and transformation to acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2014;14:401–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Padron E, Garcia-Manero G, Patnaik MM, et al. An international data set for CMML validates prognostic scoring systems and demonstrates a need for novel prognostication strategies. Blood Cancer J. 2015;5:e333.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bejar R, Levine R, Ebert BL. Unraveling the molecular pathophysiology of myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29:504–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bejar R, Stevenson K, Abdel-Wahab O, et al. Clinical effect of point mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2496–506. Important study that showed the impact of somatic mutations on clinical outcome.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bejar R, Stevenson KE, Caughey B, et al. Somatic mutations predict poor outcome in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2691–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bejar R, Stevenson KE, Caughey BA, et al. Validation of a prognostic model and the impact of mutations in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3376–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Papaemmanuil E, Gerstung M, Malcovati L, et al. Clinical and biological implications of driver mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2013;122:3616–27. quiz 99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Haferlach T, Nagata Y, Grossmann V, et al. Landscape of genetic lesions in 944 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 2014;28:241–7. Largest study published to date that investigated the molecular landscape of MDS.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nazha A, Narkhede M, Radivoyevitch T, et al. Incorporation of molecular data into the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System in treated patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 2016. The first study to incorporate mutational data into IPSS-R to improve its predictive power.

  16. Greenberg P, Cox C, LeBeau MM, et al. International scoring system for evaluating prognosis in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 1997;89:2079–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schanz J, Steidl C, Fonatsch C, et al. Coalesced multicentric analysis of 2,351 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes indicates an underestimation of poor-risk cytogenetics of myelodysplastic syndromes in the international prognostic scoring system. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1963–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Malcovati L, Della Porta MG, Strupp C, et al. Impact of the degree of anemia on the outcome of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome and its integration into the WHO classification-based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS). Haematologica. 2011;96:1433–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Malcovati L, Germing U, Kuendgen A, et al. Time-dependent prognostic scoring system for predicting survival and leukemic evolution in myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3503–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kantarjian H, O’Brien S, Ravandi F, et al. Proposal for a new risk model in myelodysplastic syndrome that accounts for events not considered in the original International Prognostic Scoring System. Cancer. 2008;113:1351–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Komrokji RS, Corrales-Yepez M, Al Ali N, et al. Validation of the MD Anderson Prognostic Risk Model for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. Cancer. 2012;118:2659–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Greenberg PL, Attar E, Bennett JM, et al. Myelodysplastic syndromes: clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2013;11:838–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenberg PL, Tuechler H, Schanz J, et al. Revised international prognostic scoring system for myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2012;120:2454–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Gerds AT, Gooley TA, Wilson WA, Deeg HJ. Components of the revised International Prognostic Scoring System and outcome after hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelodysplastic syndrome. Blood. 2013;121:4007–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Della Porta MG, Alessandrino EP, Bacigalupo A, et al. Predictive factors for the outcome of allogeneic transplantation in patients with MDS stratified according to the revised IPSS-R. Blood. 2014;123:2333–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Voso MT, Fenu S, Latagliata R, et al. Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) predicts survival and leukemic evolution of myelodysplastic syndromes significantly better than IPSS and WHO Prognostic Scoring System: validation by the Gruppo Romano Mielodisplasie Italian Regional Database. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2671–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zeidan AM, Lee JW, Prebet T, et al. Comparison of the prognostic utility of the revised International Prognostic Scoring System and the French Prognostic Scoring System in azacitidine-treated patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Br J Haematol. 2014;166:352–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lamarque M, Raynaud S, Itzykson R, et al. The revised IPSS is a powerful tool to evaluate the outcome of MDS patients treated with azacitidine: the GFM experience. Blood. 2012;120:5084–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Breccia M, Salaroli A, Loglisci G, Alimena G. Revised IPSS (IPSS-R) stratification and outcome of MDS patients treated with azacitidine. Ann Hematol. 2013;92:411–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sekeres MA, Swern AS, Fenaux P, et al. Validation of the IPSS-R in lenalidomide-treated, lower-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients with del(5q). Blood Cancer J. 2014;4:e242.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Garcia-Manero G, Shan J, Faderl S, et al. A prognostic score for patients with lower risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Leukemia. 2008;22:538–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Naqvi K, Garcia-Manero G, Sardesai S, et al. Association of comorbidities with overall survival in myelodysplastic syndrome: development of a prognostic model. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2240–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sperr WR, Wimazal F, Kundi M, et al. Comorbidity as prognostic variable in MDS: comparative evaluation of the HCT-CI and CCI in a core dataset of 419 patients of the Austrian MDS Study Group. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:114–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Breccia M, Federico V, Latagliata R, et al. Evaluation of comorbidities at diagnosis predicts outcome in myelodysplastic syndrome patients. Leuk Res. 2011;35:159–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Breccia M, Salaroli A, Loglisci G, Finsinger P, Serrao A, Alimena G. MDS-specific comorbidity index is useful to identify myelodysplastic patients who can have better outcome with 5-azacitidine. Haematologica. 2012;97:e2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Della Porta MG, Malcovati L, Strupp C, et al. Risk stratification based on both disease status and extra-hematologic comorbidities in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. Haematologica. 2011;96:441–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mailloux AW, Sugimori C, Komrokji RS, et al. Expansion of effector memory regulatory T cells represents a novel prognostic factor in lower risk myelodysplastic syndrome. J Immunol. 2012;189:3198–208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Della Porta MG, Picone C, Pascutto C, et al. Multicenter validation of a reproducible flow cytometric score for the diagnosis of low-grade myelodysplastic syndromes: results of a European LeukemiaNET study. Haematologica. 2012;97:1209–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. van de Loosdrecht AA, Ireland R, Kern W, et al. Rationale for the clinical application of flow cytometry in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: position paper of an International Consortium and the European LeukemiaNet Working Group. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54:472–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chu SC, Wang TF, Li CC, et al. Flow cytometric scoring system as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in myelodysplastic syndromes. Leuk Res. 2011;35:868–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Matarraz S, Lopez A, Barrena S, et al. Bone marrow cells from myelodysplastic syndromes show altered immunophenotypic profiles that may contribute to the diagnosis and prognostic stratification of the disease: a pilot study on a series of 56 patients. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2010;78:154–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Prebet T, Gore SD, Esterni B, et al. Outcome of high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome after azacitidine treatment failure. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3322–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Jabbour E, Garcia-Manero G, Batty N, et al. Outcome of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome after failure of decitabine therapy. Cancer. 2010;116:3830–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Papaemmanuil E, Cazzola M, Boultwood J, et al. Somatic SF3B1 mutation in myelodysplasia with ring sideroblasts. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1384–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Nazha A, Sekeres MA, Gore SD, Zeidan AM. Molecular testing in myelodysplastic syndromes for the practicing oncologist: will the progress fulfill the promise? Oncologist. 2015;20:1069–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Malcovati L, Papaemmanuil E, Ambaglio I, et al. Driver somatic mutations identify distinct disease entities within myeloid neoplasms with myelodysplasia. Blood. 2014;124:1513–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leukemia Program, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Desk R35 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Aziz Nazha & Mikkael A. Sekeres

Authors
  1. Aziz Nazha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikkael A. Sekeres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aziz Nazha.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nazha, A., Sekeres, M.A. Improving Prognostic Modeling in Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Curr Hematol Malig Rep 11, 395–401 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11899-016-0342-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11899-016-0342-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation