Skip to main content
Download PDF

IPSS-M has greater survival predictive accuracy compared with IPSS-R in persons ≥ 60 years with myelodysplastic syndromes

Experimental Hematology & Oncology volume 11, Article number: 73 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

There are considerable new data on mutation topography in persons with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). These data have been used to update conventional risk models such as the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). Whether the molecular IPSS (IPSS-M) which includes these data improves survival prediction accuracy is untested. To answer this question, we compared survival prediction accuracies of the IPSS-R and IPSS-M in 852 consecutive subjects with de novo MDS. Concordance statistics (C-statistics) of the IPSS-R and IPSS-M in the entire cohort were similar, 0.67 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.64, 0.71) and 0.68 (0.64, 0.71). Average numbers of mutations and of IPSS-M related mutations were greater in persons ≥ 60 years (2.0 [Interquartile Range [IQR], 1, 3] vs. 1.6 [0, 2], P = 0.003; 1.6 [0, 2] vs. 1.3 [0, 2], P = 0.006). Subjects ≥ 60 years had a higher incidence of mutations in RUNX1, TP53, TET2, SRSF2, DNMT3A, STAG2, EZH2 and DDX41. In contrast, mutations in U2AF1 were more common in persons < 60 years. Next we tested survival prediction accuracy based on age < or ≥ 60 years. C-statistics of the IPSS-R and IPSS-M in subjects ≥ 60 years were 0.66 (0.61, 0.71) and 0.69 (0.64, 0.73) whereas in subjects < 60 years they were 0.67 (0.61, 0.72) and 0.65 (0.59, 0.71). These data indicate an advantage for the IPSS-M over the IPSS-R in subjects ≥ 60 years but not in those < 60 years probably because of a great frequency of mutations correlated with survival in those ≥ 60 years.

Background

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are heterogeneous cancers. Accurate survival prediction models are important in counseling persons with MDS and choosing therapy(ies). The International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and revised version of IPSS (IPSS-R) are the most commonly used employing hematological, histological and cytogenetic data for survival estimation [1, 2]. Recently, considerable data on the mutation topography of persons with MDS have become available and have been added to the aforementioned co-variates to predict survival [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. An example is the molecular IPSS (IPSS-M) which adds data on 31 mutations to classify people with MDS into six survival strata [6]. Because the mutation topographies of persons < and ≥ 60 years differ, we wondered whether the IPSS-M was more accurate compared with the IPSS-R in different age cohorts. Interrogating data from 852 consecutive subjects we found an advantage for the IPSS-M in subjects ≥ 60 years but not in those < 60 years.

Methods

Subjects

We interrogated data from 852 consecutive subjects with newly-diagnosed de novo MDS seen at our centre from August, 2016 to September, 2021. Diagnosis was based on the 2016 revised criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO). 760 (89%) subjects had evaluable karyotypes at diagnosis which were classified according to the IPSS-R criteria. IPSS-R and IPSS-M model risk scores were calculated. Follow-up data were available in 771 subjects (91%). Median follow-up of survivors was 25 months (Interquartile Range [IQR], 8, 31 months). Overall survival (OS) was defined as the duration from the date of diagnosis to date of death or last follow-up. For patients who received Allo-HSCT, OS was calculated from the data of diagnosis to the date of transplant. A total of 550 subjects (65%) of the 852 MDS subjects were male. Median age was 56 years (IQR: 44, 64 years) and 540 subjects (63%) were < 60 years old. Co-variates of the subjects were displayed in Additional file 1: Table S1. Treatment data were available in 707 subjects (83%) 0.40 subjects (5.7%) accepted erythropoietin with or without G-CSF, red blood cell and/or platelet transfusions. 316 patients (44.6%) received immunosuppressive therapy (cyclosporine, thalidomide and danazol). 160 subjects (18.8%) accepted decitabine or azacytidine and 31 (3.8%) accepted chemotherapy including aclacinomycin or homoharringtonine combined with cytarabine and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF; termed CAG or HAG), idarubicin or daunorubicin combined with cytarabine (IA or DA) or melphalan. A total of 111 patients (13%) received Allo-HSCT. And some other patients (49 subjects; 5.8%) accepted traditional Chinese medicines. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee on Medical Research at Institute of Hematology and Blood Disease Hospital, conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and all subjects gave written informed consent.

Targeted gene sequencing

Mutation sequencing was done in 592 subjects using a 141-gene panel from August, 2016 to March, 2020 (Additional file 1: Table S2) and in 260 subjects using a targeted gene sequencing of 267 genes from April, 2020 to September 2021 at diagnosis in our center (Additional file 1: Table S3 and S4). PRPF8 and GNB1, defined as residual genes in IPSS-M model, were not included in the 141-gene panel. Functionally annotated mutations were filtered by 1000 Genomes, ESP6500, Inhouse, PolyPhen, SIFT and COSMIC to determine pathogenicity as described [10]. TP53 allelic state was determined as described [11, 12]. We grouped mutations into 16 main effect genes (ASXL1, CBL, DNMT3A, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, IDH2, KRAS, MLLPTD, NPM1, NRAS, RUNX1, SF3B1, SRSF2, TP53multihit and U2AF1) and 15 residual genes (BCOR, BCORL1, CEBPA, ETNK1, GATA2, GNB1, IDH1, NF1, PHF6, PPM1D, PRPF8, PTPN11, SETBP1, STAG2 and WT1) as in the IPSS-M model [6]. Details of targeted gene sequencing are in the Additional file 1.

Statistics

Numerical variables between groups were tested by the Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal Wallis tests. Categorical co-variates were compared with the Fisher exact or the χ2 tests. Survival was defined as the interval from diagnosis to death or last follow-up. The OS was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared by the log-rank test in univariable analyses. Multi-variable survival analysis used a Cox proportional-hazards regression model which included co-variates significant in uni-variable analyses at P < 0.20. Two-sided P values < 0.05 were considered of statistical significance. Model prediction accuracies were assessed by time-depend area under receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC) curves expressed as a Concordance (C)-statistic [13]. Data were analysed using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) and R statistical language (R Development Core 2008). Additional information is in the Additional file 1.

Results

Mutation topography

We characterized the genomic landscape of our MDS subjects. 652 subjects (77%) had ≥ 1 relevant mutation, 404 (47%) had ≥ 2 and 228 (27%) ≥ 3. Median number of mutations was 1.74 (IQR, 1–3). A total of 750 (88%) patients presented at least one pathogenic molecular abnormality. 290 subjects (34%) having mutations only, 90 (11%) abnormal cytogenetics only and 297 (35%) both. The five most frequent mutations included U2AF1 (22%), ASXL1 (18%), RUNX1 (12%), SF3B1 (11%) and TP53 (10%; Fig. 1A).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Genomic landscape and multivariable survival analysis in 852 patients with de novo myelodysplastic syndromes. A The frequency of mutated genes in 852 patients with de novo MDS. Lesions observed in more than five patients are shown. Colors represent different 2016 WHO subtypes. B Significant variables in multivariable analysis in 852 subjects with de novo MDS. Abbreviations: MDS: myelodysplastic syndrome; MDS-U: unclassified MDS; SLD: single-lineage dysplasia; MLD: multilineage dysplasia; RS: ring sideroblasts; EB: excess blasts; WHO: World Health Organization; BM: bone marrow; IPSS-R: International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised

Full size image

Survival

In univariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years old, hemoglobin levels, platelet concentrations, BM blast percentage, IPSS-R cytogenetic scores and mutations in RUNX1, SF3B1, TP53, SRSF2, PTPN11, CEBPA were identified as significant factors for prognosis (P < 0.05, Table 1). In multi-variable analyses, age ≥ 60 years old (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 2.04; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.56, 2.67; P < 0.0001), platelet concentrations (HR = 1.0 [1.0, 1.0]; P < 0.0001), bone marrow blasts (HR = 1.06 [1.04, 1.09]; P < 0.0001), IPSS-R cytogenetic scores (HR = 1.58 [1.42, 1.76]; P < 0.0001), SETBP1 mutation (HR = 1.92 [1.13, 3.26]; P = 0.016) and PTPN11 mutation (HR = 2.03 [1.12, 3.69]; P = 0.02) correlated with survival (Table 1; Fig. 1B).

Table 1 Multivariable analysis of prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with MDS
Full size table

Re-classification from IPSS-R to IPSS-M

Subjects were classified using the IPSS-R and IPSS-M models (Additional file 1: Table S6 and S7). When analyzing the restratification of patients from IPSS-R to IPSS-M (by merging moderate low and moderate high into moderate in IPSS-M), 351 subjects (41%) were re-classified. Of these subjects, 247 (70%) were up-staged and 104 (30%), down-staged (Additional file 1: Table S7; Fig. 2). 83 (45%) patients in the IPSS-R low risk category were up-staged into higher-risk categories (moderate/high/very high) in the IPSS-M. In IPSS-R intermediate group, 12% patients were shifted into IPSS-M low risk category and 34% were reclassified as high/very high risk categories in IPSS-M model. 12% patients of the IPSS-R high/very high risk categories were down-staged into lower risk group in IPSS-M (Additional file 1: Table S7; Fig. 2). 144 of 159 subjects (91%) re-classified as very low/low IPSS-M cohorts had ≤ 1 IPSS-M mutation. 60 of 95 subjects (63%) re-classified from very low/low/intermediate in IPSS-R to very high/high IPSS-M had > 2 IPSS-M mutations (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Comparison of the International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised (IPSS-R) and the International Prognostic Scoring System-Molecular (IPSS-M). A The restratification of IPSS-R to IPSS-M for 852 patients with MDS. Vertical axis represents IPSS-R categories and horizontal axis represents IPSS-M categories. The proportion of patients in each category is shown in Additional file 1: Table S6. B, C The percentage of restratified patients in each IPSS-R stratum, counting either any shift or cases with more than one shifts. D The association between the number of mutated IPSS-M main effect adverse genes and patient reclassification. Abbreviations: MDS: myelodysplastic syndrome; BM: bone marrow; IPSS-R: International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised; IPSS-M: International Prognostic Scoring System-Molecular

Full size image

The IPSS-M could better stratify patients within the IPSS-R scoring system, the median OS of intermediate IPSS-R patients reclassified as moderate, high and very high IPSS-M was not reached, 34 months and 13 months (95% CI 8 to 18 months, P = 0.025; Additional file 1: Fig. S1). However, the IPSS-R did not classify patient outcomes in each IPSS-M risk group (Additional file 1: Fig. S1).

Prognostic accuracy of IPSS-R and IPSS-M

Using the IPSS-R model, 28 subjects (3%) were classified as very low risk, 185 (22%) as low-risk, 241 (28%) as intermediate-risk, 175 (21%) as high-risk and 131 (15%) as very high-risk. 3-year survivals were 92% (95% CI 0.78, 1.0), 72% (0.64, 0.80), 60% (0.52, 0.68), 39% (0.28, 0.5) and 20% (0.08, 0.31) (P < 0.0001: Fig. 3). Using the IPSS-M model, 21 subjects (3%) were classified as very low-risk, 138 (16%) as low-risk, 125 (15%) as moderate low-risk, 113 (13%) as moderate high-risk, 170 (20%) as high-risk and 192 (23%) as very high-risk. 3-year survivals were 100%, 80% (95% CI, 0.72, 0.88), 67% (0.57, 0.78), 56% (0.44, 0.69), 42% (0.31, 0.53) and 25% (0.15, 0.34) (P < 0.0001; Fig. 3). C-statistics for the IPSS-R and IPSS-M model were similar, 0.67 (95% CI 0.64, 0.71) and 0.68 (0.64, 0.71) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Overall survival of MDS patients stratified according to different prognostic scoring systems. Kaplan–Meier representation of each scoring systems in our cohort. A IPSS-R risk categories, B IPSS-M risk categories. P-values are from the log-rank test. Abbreviations: IPSS-R: International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised; IPSS-M: International Prognostic Scoring System-Molecular; OS: overall survival; VL: very low; Inter: intermediate; VH: very high

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Comparison of prognostic model discrimination in patients with MDS. Model discrimination as measured by the C-statistics obtained with IPSS-R or IPSS-M categories on overall survival in the whole cohort, age < 60 years cohort and age ≥ 60 years cohort. Abbreviations: IPSS-R: International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised; IPSS-M: International Prognostic Scoring System-Molecular; CI: confidence interval

Full size image

Correlations between age and numbers and frequencies of mutations

In our dataset, survival was significantly longer in subjects < 60 years compared with those ≥ 60 years, not reached versus 25 months (19, 31 months; P < 0.0001; Additional file 1: Fig. S2).

Table 2 displays differences in clinical, hematologic and mutation data of subjects < and ≥ 60 years. Older subjects were more often male (72% versus 60%; P < 0.0001), more often had MDS with excess blasts (MDS-EB; 53% versus 36%; P < 0.0001), a higher percentage of bone marrow blasts (median: 4.5% versus 2.0%; P < 0.0001) and more often had IPSS-R poor-risk cytogenetics (14% versus 9%; P < 0.0001). Subjects < 60 years were more often had IPSS-R intermediate-risk cytogenetics (26% versus 15%; P < 0.0001). Although overall there was no significant difference in IPSS-R risk stratification based on age (P = 0.33), there were more IPSS-M subjects with very high-risk in subjects ≥ 60 years (28 versus 19%; P = 0.03, Table 2).

Table 2 Clinical, laboratory and genetic characteristics of younger (< 60 years) and older (≥ 60 years) MDS patients
Full size table

The frequency and distribution of mutations by age cohort is displayed in Fig. 5. Average number of mutations in subjects ≥ 60 years was greater compared with subjects < 60 years, 2.0 ± 1.7 versus 1.6 ± 1.5 (mean ± SD, P = 0.003). Mean number of IPSS-M mutated genes was also higher, 1.6 ± 1.4 vs. 1.3 ± 1.3 (P = 0.006) as was mean number of main effect genes, 1.3 ± 1.1 versus 1.0 ± 1.1 (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in IPSS-M residual genes (0.3 ± 0.6 versus 0.3 ± 0.6; P = 0.53, Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Mutational spectrum in the younger patients (age < 60 years) and older ones (age ≥ 60 years) with MDS. A The total number of mutations in the younger and older cohorts. B–D Genes related to IPSS-M in younger and older patients, including total number of genes (B), main effect genes (C) and residual genes in IPSS-M (D). E, F Prevalence of main effect genes and residual genes in IPSS-M of different age cohorts. 16 main effect genes in IPSS-M: ASXL1, CBL, DNMT3A, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, IDH2, KRAS, MLLPTD, NPM1, NRAS, RUNX1, SF3B1, SRSF2, TP53multihit and U2AF1; 15 residual genes in IPSS-M: BCOR, BCORL1, CEBPA, ETNK1, GATA2, GNB1, IDH1, NF1, PHF6, PPM1D, PRPF8, PTPN11, SETBP1, STAG2 and WT1. Abbreviations: IPSS-M: International Prognostic Scoring System-Molecular

Full size image

Figure 5 and Table 2 displays frequencies of mutated genes by age cohort. Subjects ≥ 60 years had a higher incidence of mutations in RUNX1, TP53, TET2, SRSF2, DNMT3A, STAG2, EZH2 and DDX41. In contrast, mutations in U2AF1 were more common in persons < 60 years (P < 0.05, Fig. 5, Table 2).

Survival prediction accuracy of IPSS-R compared with IPSS-M by age.

The IPSS-R model had higher C- statistics (0.67 [95% CI 0.61, 0.72] vs. 0.65 [0.59, 0.71]) in younger cohort while IPSS-M had higher C- statistics (0.69 [0.64, 0.73] vs. 0.66 [0.61, 0.71]) in older cohort, suggesting that IPSS-M was more reliable than IPSS-R in patients aged 60 years or older (Fig. 4).

Discussion

Incorporation of significant genetic mutations into conventional prognostic scoring tools undoubtedly provided more appropriate risk stratification of MDS patients [3,4,5,6,7,8]. However, there was a heterogeneity of patient populations, analysis methods and mutation inclusions in different models. Also, how to implement various genomic-clinical risk scoring systems in clinical practice still remained a challenge. In this study, we employed the IPSS-R and IPSS-M risk models in our cohort of 852 patients with de novo MDS to assess their prognostic strength.

Compared with IPSS-R categories, the utility of the IPSS-M model showed similar statistical value (C- statistics: 0.68 vs. 0.67) and the C- statistics was not as high as that of the IWG-PM cohort (C- statistics: 0.73) in Bernard et al. study [6].

Different disease proportions and patient populations may be part of the explanation. Only patients with de novo MDS were included in our study but approximately 20% of subjects in IPSS-M discovery cohort were diagnosed with secondary/therapy-related MDS (s/t-MDS) or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap syndromes [6]. Examining baseline patient characteristics, the median age was much younger in our cohort compared with the IPSS-M cohorts (median age: 56 vs. 73 vs. 72 years, P < 0.001, Additional file 1: Table S1). An earlier onset age in Chinese MDS patients might be related to distinct genetic factors and different ethnic backgrounds [14,15,16,17,18]. Furthermore, our cohort showed pronounced cytopenia, increased BM blasts and unfavorable karyotypes compared to the IWG-PM cohort. Previous reports also indicated the phenomenon that Asian patients had more severe cytopenias and worse cytogenetic aberrations compared to Western patients [14,15,16,17]. Therefore, the ethnic specificities could also explain why IPSS-M did not show improved prognostic accuracy in our cohort.

In fact, MDS prognostic scoring systems were mainly established using clinical and genetic data obtained from patients aged 60 years or older. Although Kuendgen et al. [19] held the view that younger MDS patients were not significantly different compared with older ones. Other studies indicated that younger patients with MDS represented unique clinical and biological features and different prognosis [18, 20,21,22]. Therefore, we expanded our analyses to find whether the genomic-clinical risk model derived from older patients had different performance in different age cohorts.

Hence our patients were segregated into two cohorts using the cut-off age of 60 years depending on UN and WHO recommendations [23, 24]. The result highlighted that prognosis was more favorable in younger patients compared with older ones which is consistent with other reports [18, 19, 21]. The disparity in survival largely resulted from the elderly’s comorbidities.

Moreover, we found that differences arose from patients in younger and older cohorts. For patients belonging to the older cohort, they were more likely to be males which was in accordance with other investigations [18]. A similar proportion of MDS-EB cases in subjects < 60 years were found in prior single-center studies [19, 21, 22], which was markedly lower than that in older ones [18]. In parallel, the percentage of BM blasts was higher in subjects ≥ 60 years. Regarding cytogenetic aberrations, very poor IPSS-R cytogenetics were more frequent in the elderly. As is shown in our result, there is a trend towards disease progression for MDS subjects ≥ 60 years. Li et al. [18] suggested that a higher female-to-male ratio, increased trisomy 8, less advanced disease in patients younger than 60 years old may be due to a stronger self-immune surveillance reaction and a weaker T-cell surveillance, higher prevalence of BM blasts may result in more advanced disease and worse prognosis in older subjects, which revealed different pathogenesis. Interestingly, more subjects ≥ 60 years were divided into high-risk IPSS-M classifications whereas the distributions among IPSS-R risk groups were similar. This leaded to a more detailed investigation into the mutational profiles of different age groups.

Compared with younger patients, older patients had more mutations and more harmful genes according to IPSS-M model. There was a preponderance of U2AF1 in younger ones while ASXL1 was more frequent in subjects ≥ 60 years which was also reported by another study [25]. This may provide a possible explanation that the rate of U2AF1 was 22% in our whole cohort, which was higher than other Western cohorts [6, 8]. Results for other mutations showed that an enrichment for RUNX1, TP53, TET2, SRSF2, DNMT3A, STAG2, EZH2, DDX41 in the elderly. Such conclusion aligned with data from several important research that DNMT3A, ASXL1 and TET2 initiated clonal hematopoietic expansion and the mutation frequencies rose dramatically with the aging process [26,27,28,29,30]. Peterson ZD and colleagues [22] found TP53 mutations were the most common mutations (21%) in patients 20–50 years old with MDS. But our result showed that the TP53 mutations were enriched in subjects ≥ 60 years (14.1% vs. 7.6%) and there was no difference in the frequency of TP53multihit in these two subgroups (8.3% vs. 5.0%, P = 0.052). We hypothesized the difference of these results may be related to the use of a different sequencing panel coupled with a limited cohort size. Mutations in RUNX1, SRSF2 and EZH2 predicted unfavorable prognosis and STAG2 accelerates leukemogenesis process in MDS [8, 9, 31, 32]. Besides, germline DDX41 mutations induce disease with an age ranging from 44–88 years and are associated with advanced disease, such as MDS-EB [33]. Although DDX41 mutations occurred more frequently in older patients, germline and somatic DDX41 mutations were not distinguished in our analysis. Taken together, the accumulation of detrimental mutations determined the clone evolution of MDS and was related to worse survival in the elderly. Furthermore, the different genetic profiles between Western MDS subjects and our subjects may result from different age distributions.

Next we tested survival prediction accuracy based on age < or ≥ 60 years. Remarkably, advanced improvement in the predictive power of IPSS-M was observed in patients ≥ 60 years old (C- statistics: 0.69 vs. 0.66), but it had not been found to be more predictive than IPSS-R in younger patients (C- statistics: 0.65 vs. 0.67).

However, our study had limitations. Our study was a retrospective analysis from a single center and 592 patients used a 141-gene panel without PRPF8 and GNB1 which were included in IPSS-M model. Nevertheless, we compared the patients’ characteristics to eliminate the influence. In general, a multicenter study is needed to confirm the prognostic value of IPSS-M and the heterogeneity of different age cohorts in MDS.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the evidence that similar prognostic value between IPSS-R and IPSS-M prognostic models in our cohort could be explained by study-specific factors, like different population age, distinct disease proportions and unique ethnic backgrounds. Our study cohort was separated into younger and older cohorts because an earlier onset age was found. More advanced disease and increasing putative mutations were presented in patients aged 60 years or older. For them, IPSS-M model will undoubtedly enhance the ability of predicting prognosis and guiding proper therapy selections compared with IPSS-R model.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly due to privacy or ethical restrictions. All authors disclose no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

MDS:

Myelodysplastic syndromes

IPSS-R:

The Revised International Prognostic Scoring System

IPSS-M:

The molecular IPSS

WHO:

The World Health Organization

IQR:

Interquartile range

G-CSF:

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor

OS:

Overall survival

AUROC:

Area under receiver-operator characteristic

C-statistic:

Concordance statistic

HR:

Hazard Ratio

CI:

Confidence Interval

MDS-EB:

MDS with excess blasts

s/t-MDS:

Secondary/therapy-related MDS

References

  1. Greenberg P, Cox C, LeBeau MM, Fenaux P, Morel P, Sanz G, et al. International scoring system for evaluating prognosis in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 1997;89(6):2079–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Greenberg PL, Tuechler H, Schanz J, Sanz G, Garcia-Manero G, Sole F, et al. Revised international prognostic scoring system for myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2012;120(12):2454–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nazha A, Komrokji R, Meggendorfer M, Jia X, Radakovich N, Shreve J, et al. Personalized prediction model to risk stratify patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(33):3737–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nazha A, Narkhede M, Radivoyevitch T, Seastone DJ, Patel BJ, Gerds AT, et al. Incorporation of molecular data into the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System in treated patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 2016;30(11):2214–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bersanelli M, Travaglino E, Meggendorfer M, Matteuzzi T, Sala C, Mosca E, et al. Classification and personalized prognostic assessment on the basis of clinical and genomic features in myelodysplastic syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(11):1223–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernard E, Tuechler H, Greenberg PL, Hasserjian RP, Arango Ossa JE, Nannya Y, et al. Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System for myelodysplastic syndromes. NEJM Evid. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2200008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nazha A, Al-Issa K, Hamilton BK, Radivoyevitch T, Gerds AT, Mukherjee S, et al. Adding molecular data to prognostic models can improve predictive power in treated patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 2017;31(12):2848–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Haferlach T, Nagata Y, Grossmann V, Okuno Y, Bacher U, Nagae G, et al. Landscape of genetic lesions in 944 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 2014;28(2):241–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jiang L, Luo Y, Zhu S, Wang L, Ma L, Zhang H, et al. Mutation status and burden can improve prognostic prediction of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Cancer Sci. 2020;111(2):580–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Li B, Gale RP, Xu Z, Qin T, Song Z, Zhang P, et al. Non-driver mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bernard E, Nannya Y, Hasserjian RP, Devlin SM, Tuechler H, Medina-Martinez JS, et al. Implications of TP53 allelic state for genome stability, clinical presentation and outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes. Nat Med. 2020;26(10):1549–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Grob T, Al Hinai ASA, Sanders MA, Kavelaars FG, Rijken M, Gradowska PL, et al. Molecular characterization of mutant TP53 acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Blood. 2022;139(15):2347–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Harrell FE. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. J Am Med Assoc. 1982;247(18):2543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jiang Y, Eveillard JR, Couturier MA, Soubise B, Chen JM, Gao S, et al. Asian population is more prone to develop high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, concordantly with their propensity to exhibit high-risk cytogenetic aberrations. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(3):481.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang H, Wu J, Qin T, Xu Z, Qu S, Pan L, et al. Is race important in genomic classification of hematological neoplasms? Hematol Oncol. 2021;39(5):728–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Matsuda A, Germing U, Jinnai I, Misumi M, Kuendgen A, Knipp S, et al. Difference in clinical features between Japanese and German patients with refractory anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2005;106(8):2633–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Miyazaki Y, Tuechler H, Sanz G, Schanz J, Garcia-Manero G, Sole F, et al. Differing clinical features between Japanese and Caucasian patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: analysis from the International Working Group for Prognosis of MDS. Leuk Res. 2018;73:51–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Li X, Xiao ZJ, Chang CK, Xu F, Wu LY, He Q, et al. Distinct clinical and experimental characteristics in the patients younger than 60 years old with myelodysplastic syndromes. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(2): e57392.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuendgen A, Strupp C, Aivado M, Hildebrandt B, Haas R, Gattermann N, et al. Myelodysplastic syndromes in patients younger than age 50. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(34):5358–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Breccia M, Mengarelli A, Mancini M, Biondo F, Gentilini F, Latagliata R, et al. Myelodysplastic syndromes in patients under 50 years old: a single institution experience. Leuk Res. 2005;29(7):749–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grabska J, Shah B, Reed D, Al Ali N, Padron E, Ramadan H, et al. Myelodysplastic syndromes in adolescent young adults: one institution’s experience. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2016;16(Suppl):S53–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Epstein-Peterson ZD, Spitzer B, Derkach A, Arango JE, McCarter JGW, Medina-Martinez JS, et al. De Novo myelodysplastic syndromes in patients 20–50 years old are enriched for adverse risk features. Leuk Res. 2022;117: 106857.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fitzgerald KG. Older persons in emergencies: an active ageing perspective, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008, p. 43. ISBN: 978 92 4 156364 2. Int J Health Plann Manag. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kowal P, Dowd JE. Definition of an older person. Proposed working definition of an older person in Africa for the MDS Project. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Li B, Liu J, Jia Y, Wang J, Xu Z, Qin T, et al. Clinical features and biological implications of different U2AF1 mutation types in myelodysplastic syndromes. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2018;57(2):80–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Genovese G, Kahler AK, Handsaker RE, Lindberg J, Rose SA, Bakhoum SF, et al. Clonal hematopoiesis and blood-cancer risk inferred from blood DNA sequence. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(26):2477–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Busque L, Patel JP, Figueroa ME, Vasanthakumar A, Provost S, Hamilou Z, et al. Recurrent somatic TET2 mutations in normal elderly individuals with clonal hematopoiesis. Nat Genet. 2012;44(11):1179–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Jaiswal S, Fontanillas P, Flannick J, Manning A, Grauman PV, Mar BG, et al. Age-related clonal hematopoiesis associated with adverse outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(26):2488–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Xie M, Lu C, Wang J, McLellan MD, Johnson KJ, Wendl MC, et al. Age-related mutations associated with clonal hematopoietic expansion and malignancies. Nat Med. 2014;20(12):1472–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Steensma DP, Bejar R, Jaiswal S, Lindsley RC, Sekeres MA, Hasserjian RP, et al. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential and its distinction from myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2015;126(1):9–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bejar R, Stevenson K, Abdel-Wahab O, Galili N, Nilsson B, Garcia-Manero G, et al. Clinical effect of point mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2496–506.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Thota S, Viny AD, Makishima H, Spitzer B, Radivoyevitch T, Przychodzen B, et al. Genetic alterations of the cohesin complex genes in myeloid malignancies. Blood. 2014;124(11):1790–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Polprasert C, Schulze I, Sekeres MA, Makishima H, Przychodzen B, Hosono N, et al. Inherited and somatic defects in DDX41 in myeloid neoplasms. Cancer Cell. 2015;27(5):658–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Supported, in part, by the National Natural Science Fund (Nos. 81530008 and 81870104), CAMS Initiative Fund for Medical Sciences (Nos. 2016-I2M-1–001 and 2020-I2M-C&T-A-020 and 2020-I2M-C&T-B-090) and Haihe Laboratory of Cell Ecosystem Innovation Fund (HH22KYZX0033). RPG acknowledges support from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (84000–51200002).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Junying Wu and Yudi Zhang are contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Experimental Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Blood Diseases, Haihe Laboratory of Cell Ecosystem, Institute of Hematology & Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Tianjin, 300020, China

    Junying Wu, Yudi Zhang, Zefeng Xu, Shiqiang Qu, Bing Li, Qingyan Gao, Jingye Gong, Songyang Zhao, Fuhui Li & Zhijian Xiao

  2. MDS and MPN Centre, Institute of Hematology & Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Tianjin, 300020, China

    Tiejun Qin, Zefeng Xu, Shiqiang Qu, Lijuan Pan, Bing Li, Qingyan Gao & Zhijian Xiao

  3. Hematologic Pathology Centre, Institute of Hematology & Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Tianjin, 300020, China

    Yujiao Jia, Chengwen Li, Huijun Wang, Wenyu Cai & Zhijian Xiao

  4. Centre for Hematology, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK

    Robert Peter Gale

Authors
  1. Junying Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yudi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tiejun Qin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zefeng Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shiqiang Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lijuan Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yujiao Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Chengwen Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Huijun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Qingyan Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Wenyu Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jingye Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Songyang Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Fuhui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Robert Peter Gale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Zhijian Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ZJX designed the study. JYW, YDZ, TJQ, ZFX collected and analyzed the data. LJP, LB, YJJ, CWL, HJW, QYG, WYC, JYG, SYZ and FHL recruited subjects. JYW, ZJX and RPG prepared the typescript. All authors reviewed the typescript, approved this version and agreed to submit for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhijian Xiao.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee on Medical Research at Institute of Hematology and Blood Disease Hospital.

Patient consent

Oral or written informed consent was obtained for each patient.

Competing interests

RPG is a consultant to NexImmune Inc. Nanexa Pharma, Ascentage Pharm Group and Antengene Biotech LLC, Medical Director of FFF Enterprises Inc.; Partner in AZAC Inc.; Board of Directors of Russian Foundation for Cancer Research Support and Scientific Advisory Board: StemRad Ltd.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Re-stratification of patients from IPSS-R to IPSS-M. (A) Kaplan-Meier probability estimates of overall survival (OS) per IPSS-M category within each IPSS-R category. (B) Kaplan-Meier probability estimates of OS per IPSS-R category within each IPSS-M category. P-values are from the log-rank test. Figure S2. Overall survival of younger patients (age < 60 years) and older patients (age ≥ 60 years) with MDS stratified according to different prognostic scoring systems. (A) Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival in the younger patients (age < 60 years) and older ones (age ≥ 60 years) with MDS. The younger patients showed significantly longer overall survival (OS) than the older ones (P<0.0001). (B-C) Kaplan-Meier representation of IPSS-R scoring system in younger and older patients. (D-E) Kaplan-Meier representation of IPSS-M scoring system in younger and older patients. P-values are from the log-rank test. Table S1. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of Chinese, Japan (validation cohort) and IWG-PM (discovery cohort) cohorts restricted to patients with primary MDS and untreated with disease-modifying therapies during their clinical course. Table S2. List of 141 genes included in the targeted sequencing panel. Table S3. List of 267 genes included in the targeted sequencing panel. Table S4. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of 592 and 260 patients in our cohort using different gene panels. Table S5. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of Chinese, Japan (validation cohort) and IWG-PM (discovery cohort) cohorts. Table S6. Distribution (%) of MDS patients categorized into IPSS-M categories by IPSS-R categories. Table S7. Distribution (%) of MDS patients categorized into IPSS-M categories by IPSS-R categories (by merging moderate low and moderate high into moderate in IPSS-M).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, J., Zhang, Y., Qin, T. et al. IPSS-M has greater survival predictive accuracy compared with IPSS-R in persons ≥ 60 years with myelodysplastic syndromes. Exp Hematol Oncol 11, 73 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40164-022-00328-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40164-022-00328-4

Keywords

Experimental Hematology & Oncology

ISSN: 2162-3619

Contact us