4.7 Article

GIPSS: genetically inspired prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis

Journal

LEUKEMIA
Volume 32, Issue 7, Pages 1631-1642

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-018-0107-z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Henry J. Predolin foundation grant (Madison, WI, USA)
  2. Associazione Italiana per la Ricera sul Cancro (AIRC
  3. Milan, Italy) [1005]
  4. Progetto Ministero della Salute [GR-2011-02352109]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

International collaborations over the years have produced a series of prognostic models for primary myelofibrosis (PMF), including the recently unveiled mutation-enhanced international prognostic scoring systems for transplant-age patients (MIPSS70 and MIPSS70-plus). In the current study, we considered the feasibility of a genetically inspired prognostic scoring system (GIPSS) that is exclusively based on genetic markers. Among 641 cytogenetically annotated patients with PMF and informative for previously recognized adverse mutations, multivariable analysis identified VHR karyotype, unfavorable karyotype, absence of type 1/like CALR mutation and presence of ASXL1, SRSF2, or U2AF1Q157 mutation, as inter-independent predictors of inferior survival; the respective HRs (95% CI) were 3.1 (2.1-4.3), 2.1 (1.6-2.7), 2.1 (1.6-2.9), 1.8 (1.5-2.3), 2.4 (1.9-3.2), and 2.4 (1.7-3.3). Based on HR-weighted risk points, a four-tiered GIPSS model was devised: low (zero points; n = 58), intermediate-1 (1 point; n = 260), intermediate-2 (2 points; n = 192), and high (= 3 points; n = 131); the respective median (5-year) survivals were 26.4 (94%), 8.0 (73%), 4.2 (40%), and 2 (14%) years; the model was internally validated by bootstrapping and its predictive accuracy was shown to be comparable to that of MIPSS70-plus. GIPPS offers a low-complexity prognostic tool for PMF that is solely dependent on genetic risk factors and, thus, forward-looking in its essence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available