When to use which molecular prognostic scoring system in the management of patients with MDS?

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology Pub Date : 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1016/j.beha.2023.101517
Tariq Kewan , Jan Philipp Bewersdorf , Carmelo Gurnari , Zhuoer Xie , Maximilian Stahl , Amer M. Zeidan
{"title":"When to use which molecular prognostic scoring system in the management of patients with MDS?","authors":"Tariq Kewan ,&nbsp;Jan Philipp Bewersdorf ,&nbsp;Carmelo Gurnari ,&nbsp;Zhuoer Xie ,&nbsp;Maximilian Stahl ,&nbsp;Amer M. Zeidan","doi":"10.1016/j.beha.2023.101517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematopoietic cancers characterized by recurrent molecular alterations driving the disease pathogenesis with a variable propensity for progression to acute myeloid leukemia<span><span><span> (AML). Clinical decision making for MDS relies on appropriate risk stratification at diagnosis, with higher-risk patients requiring more intensive therapy. The conventional clinical prognostic systems including the </span>International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and its revised version (IPSS-R) have dominated the risk stratification of MDS from 1997 until 2022. Concurrently, the use of next-generation sequencing has revolutionized the field by revealing multiple recurrent </span>genetic mutations<span>, which correlate with phenotype and prognosis. Significant efforts have been made to formally incorporate molecular data into prognostic tools to improve proper risk identification and personalize treatment strategies. In this review, we will critically compare the available molecular scoring systems for MDS focusing on areas of progress and potential limitations that can be improved in subsequent revisions of these tools.</span></span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":8744,"journal":{"name":"Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology","volume":"36 4","pages":"Article 101517"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521692623000786","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematopoietic cancers characterized by recurrent molecular alterations driving the disease pathogenesis with a variable propensity for progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Clinical decision making for MDS relies on appropriate risk stratification at diagnosis, with higher-risk patients requiring more intensive therapy. The conventional clinical prognostic systems including the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and its revised version (IPSS-R) have dominated the risk stratification of MDS from 1997 until 2022. Concurrently, the use of next-generation sequencing has revolutionized the field by revealing multiple recurrent genetic mutations, which correlate with phenotype and prognosis. Significant efforts have been made to formally incorporate molecular data into prognostic tools to improve proper risk identification and personalize treatment strategies. In this review, we will critically compare the available molecular scoring systems for MDS focusing on areas of progress and potential limitations that can be improved in subsequent revisions of these tools.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在MDS患者的管理中,何时使用哪种分子预后评分系统?
骨髓增生异常综合征/肿瘤(MDS)是一组异质性造血癌症,其特征是复发性分子改变驱动疾病发病机制,具有发展为急性髓系白血病(AML)的可变倾向。MDS的临床决策依赖于诊断时适当的风险分层,高风险患者需要更强化的治疗。从1997年到2022年,包括国际预后评分系统(IPSS)及其修订版本(IPSS- r)在内的传统临床预后系统主导了MDS的风险分层。同时,下一代测序的使用通过揭示与表型和预后相关的多种复发性基因突变,彻底改变了该领域。在将分子数据正式纳入预后工具以改进适当的风险识别和个性化治疗策略方面已经做出了重大努力。在这篇综述中,我们将批判性地比较现有的MDS分子评分系统,重点关注这些工具在后续修订中可以改进的进展和潜在局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology publishes review articles integrating the results from the latest original research articles into practical, evidence-based review articles. These articles seek to address the key clinical issues of diagnosis, treatment and patient management. Each issue follows a problem-orientated approach which focuses on the key questions to be addressed, clearly defining what is known and not known, covering the spectrum of clinical and laboratory haematological practice and research. Although most reviews are invited, the Editor welcomes suggestions from potential authors.
期刊最新文献
Erratum to “Special issue 37.2 and 37.3 Genetics and Function of HLA and immune-related genes in transplantation and cellular immunotherapy” [Best Pract Res Clin Haematol (2024) 101588] Editorial Board From clones to immunopeptidomes: New developments in the characterization of permissive HLA-DP mismatches in hematopoietic cell transplantation Relevance of donor-specific HLA antibodies in hematopoietic cell transplantation HLA structure and function in hematopoietic-cell transplantation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1