Conference Coverage

Team develops new scoring systems for PMF


Photo courtesy of ASH

ASH 2017 attendees

ATLANTA—Two novel prognostic scoring systems can help clinicians decide how to treat certain patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF), according to a new study.

The scoring systems, which build upon the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), were developed for use in PMF patients age 70 and younger who are potential candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

One of the scoring systems—MIPSS70—integrates clinical, histologic, and molecular information. The other—MIPSS70-plus—also includes cytogenetic information.

Alessandro M. Vannucchi, MD, of the University of Florence in Italy, presented details on these prognostic scoring systems at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting (abstract 200*).

The information was published simultaneously in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr Vannucchi noted that, in PMF, survival is currently predicted by the IPSS, the dynamic IPSS, and the dynamic IPSS-plus.

“The IPSS score is used at the time of diagnosis, while the dynamic IPSS or dynamic IPSS-plus are used to provide survival estimates at the time of patient referral,” he explained. “In clinical practice, these prognostic risk scores are mainly used for [HSCT] decision-making in younger patients.”

Driver mutations and other myeloid neoplasm-associated mutations provide prognostic information that is independent of the IPSS/dynamic IPSS/dynamic IPSS-plus scoring systems.

The degree of bone marrow fibrosis and cytogenetic abnormalities configuring an unfavorable category also contribute prognostic information that is independent of these scoring systems.

With this in mind, Dr Vannucchi and his colleagues set out to develop an updated prognostic score that included molecular information (MIPSS70) and, if possible, cytogenetic information (MIPSS70-plus) for PMF patients age 70 and younger who are potential candidates for HSCT.

The researchers developed 2 prognostic models using a training/validation cohort approach.

For MIPSS70, the training cohort included 490 patients from 6 Italian institutions associated with the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Gruppo Italiano Malattie Mieloproliferative project (AGIMM group), and the validation cohort included 211 patients from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

For MIPSS70-plus, the training cohort included 315 patients from the Mayo Clinic, and the validation cohort included 261 patients from the AGIMM group.

Using the MIPSS70 risk score in the validation cohort, the 5-year overall survival rate was 96% in low-risk, 67% in intermediate-risk, and 34% in high-risk patients.

“MIPSS70 performed better than IPSS in predicting survival,” Dr Vannucchi said. “About 30% of patients who were high-risk with MIPPS70 were missed by IPSS.”

Using the MIPSS70-plus risk score in the validation cohort, the 5-year overall survival rate was 100% in low-risk, 90% in intermediate-risk, 76% in high-risk, and 46.5% in very high-risk patients.

The MIPSS70-plus risk score also identified patients at very high risk for leukemic transformation, Dr Vannucchi said.

Furthermore, both MIPSS70 and MIPSS70-plus remained predictive of survival when the researchers evaluated patients older than 70 years of age.

“The new MIPSS70 and MIPSS70-plus scores include modern disease-associated risk variables pertinent to both pre-PMF and overt-PMF according to the 2016 WHO classification,” Dr Vannucchi said. “They integrate prognostically relevant clinical, cytogenetic, and mutation data and provide complementary systems of improved risk stratification for transplantation-age patients with PMF.”

Dr Vannucchi disclosed membership in speaker’s bureaus with Gilead, Shire, and Novartis, and research funding and membership on Board of Directors or advisory committees with Novartis.

*Data in the presentation differ from the abstract.

Next Article: