Gastrointestinal Acuity Score (GAS): A Comprehensive Risk Score Incorporating Histologic Grade and Clinical Factors to Predict Need for Second Line Therapy, Non-Relapse Mortality, and Overall Survival in Lower Gastrointestinal Graft Vs. Host Disease

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3128-3128
Author(s):  
Jin S. Im ◽  
Rima M Saliba ◽  
Susan C Abraham ◽  
Asif Rashid ◽  
William Ross ◽  
...  

Abstract Lower Gastrointestinal Graft versus Host Disease (GI GVHD) is a major cause for GVHD related non-relapsed mortality (NRM). High dose corticosteroid is the initial therapy for suspected lower GI GVHD, and additional therapy is often required for steroid refractory cases. The identification of high-risk patients is critical as timely intensification of treatment through early institution of second line therapy improves outcomes. To develop a reliable lower GI GVHD risk scoring system, Gastrointestinal Acuity Score (GAS), we evaluated 210 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic biopsy for suspected lower GI GVHD within 6 months from the transplant from 2009 to 2012 at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. We first identified 5 significant prognostic factors that accounted for the increased NRM in lower GI GVHD using univariate analysis: histologic grade, clinical stage, age, multi-organ GVHD, and donor type (Table 1). Gender, donor cell type, conditioning regimen (myeloablative vs non-myeloablative), time of diagnosis, disease status did not significantly influence NRM. Next, we performed multivariate Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis that utilizes sequential binary decision nodes to categorize 197 patients into subgroups according to their risk profile and outcome (Figure 1). The decision tree identified 7 subgroups starting with the presence of multi-organ GVHD as the first major decision node. This was followed by clinical stage 3/4, Age > 40 years, histology grade 3/4, and histology grade 1. We then consolidated subgroups with comparable risk profiles into low, intermediate, and high NRM risk groups (Figure 1). The 3 NRM risk groups correlated with day 28 response, the need for second line therapy and overall survival (Figure 2). The complete response rates at day 28 from the initiation of steroid therapy were significantly lower in the high (15%, p<0.001) and intermediate (43%, p=0.003) risk group compared to the low-risk group (70%). Accordingly, the high-risk patients were 4.3 (p < 0.001) and 1.6 (p=0.02) folds more likely to need second line therapy compared to low and intermediate risk patients, respectively. The intermediate risk patients were 2.7 (p=0.02) folds more likely to need second line therapy compared to the low risk group. In addition, the high-risk group was associated with the highest NRM (HR 5.4, p<0.001), followed by the intermediate risk (HR 3.8, p<0.001) compared to the low risk group. This translated into worse overall survival at 1 year for the high-risk patients. Lastly, there was a trend towards a lower chronic GVHD rate in the low risk group (25%, HR=0.6, p 0.06) compared to the high and intermediate risk groups (37%). In conclusion, we developed a novel risk scoring system, Gastrointestinal Acuity Score (GAS), incorporating histologic grades and clinical factors through multivariate CART analysis, and demonstrated that GAS predicts both early outcomes (day 28 CR rate and need for second line therapy) and late outcomes (NRM and overall survival) in patients with lower GI GVHD. Once prospectively validated in a larger cohort of lower GI GVHD patients, it will be of great use for clinicians with limited access to GVHD biomarker analysis in making treatment decisions as our new risk scoring system utilizes readily available variables. Figure 1. Univariate Analysis of risk factors for NRM at 1 year in Lower GI GVHD Figure 1. Univariate Analysis of risk factors for NRM at 1 year in Lower GI GVHD Figure 2. CART Analysis: Decision Tree for Risk Assessment Figure 2. CART Analysis: Decision Tree for Risk Assessment Figure 3. Need for second line therapy, NRM and OS Figure 3. Need for second line therapy, NRM and OS Disclosures Alousi: Therakos, Inc: Research Funding.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Ding ◽  
Tian Li ◽  
Min Li ◽  
Tuersong Tayier ◽  
MeiLin Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Autophagy and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been the focus of research on the pathogenesis of melanoma. However, the autophagy network of lncRNAs in melanoma has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to investigate the lncRNA prognostic markers related to melanoma autophagy and predict the prognosis of patients with melanoma.Methods: We downloaded RNA-sequencing data and clinical information of melanoma from The Cancer Genome Atlas. The co-expression of autophagy-related genes (ARGs) and lncRNAs was analyzed. The risk model of autophagy-related lncRNAs was established by univariate and multivariate COX regression analyses, and the best prognostic index was evaluated combined with clinical data. Finally, gene set enrichment analysis was performed on patients in the high- and low-risk groups.Results: According to the results of the univariate COX analysis, only the overexpression of LINC00520 was associated with poor overall survival, unlike HLA-DQB1-AS1, USP30-AS1, AL645929, AL365361, LINC00324, and AC055822. The results of the multivariate COX analysis showed that the overall survival of patients in the high-risk group was shorter than that recorded in the low-risk group (p<0.001). Moreover, in the receiver operating characteristic curve of the risk model we constructed, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.734, while the AUC of T and N was 0.707 and 0.658, respectively. The Gene Ontology was mainly enriched with the positive regulation of autophagy and the activation of the immune system. The results of the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment were mostly related to autophagy, immunity, and melanin metabolism.Conclusion: The positive regulation of autophagy may slow the transition from low-risk patients to high-risk patients in melanoma. Furthermore, compared with clinical information, the autophagy-related lncRNAs risk model may better predict the prognosis of patients with melanoma and provide new treatment ideas.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mo Chen ◽  
Tian-en Li ◽  
Pei-zhun Du ◽  
Junjie Pan ◽  
Zheng Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and aims: In this research, we aimed to construct a risk classification model to predict overall survival (OS) and locoregional surgery benefit in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with distant metastasis.Methods: We selected a cohort consisting of 12741 CRC patients diagnosed with distant metastasis between 2010 and 2014, from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Patients were randomly assigned into training group and validation group at the ratio of 2:1. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were applied to screen independent prognostic factors. A nomogram was constructed and assessed by the Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) and calibration plots. A novel risk classification model was further established based on the nomogram.Results: Ultimately 12 independent risk factors including race, age, marriage, tumor site, tumor size, grade, T stage, N stage, bone metastasis, brain metastasis, lung metastasis and liver metastasis were identified and adopted in the nomogram. The C-indexes of training and validation groups were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.81) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.72-0.78), respectively. The risk classification model stratified patients into three risk groups (low-, intermediate- and high-risk) with divergent median OS (low-risk: 36.0 months, 95% CI 34.1-37.9; intermediate-risk: 18.0 months, 95% CI 17.4-18.6; high-risk: 6.0 months, 95% CI 5.3-6.7). Locoregional therapies including surgery and radiotherapy could prognostically benefit patients in the low-risk group (surgery: hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.71; radiotherapy: HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98) and intermediate risk group (surgery: HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.68; radiotherapy: HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.95), but not in the high-risk group (surgery: HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82-1.29; radiotherapy: HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81-1.31). And all risk groups could benefit from systemic therapy (low-risk: HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.80; intermediate-risk: HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.47-0.54; high-risk: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40-0.53).Conclusion: A novel risk classification model predicting prognosis and locoregional surgery benefit of CRC patients with distant metastasis was established and validated. This predictive model could be further utilized by physicians and be of great significance for medical practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Grinberg ◽  
T Bental ◽  
Y Hammer ◽  
A R Assali ◽  
H Vaknin-Assa ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Following Myocardial Infarction (MI), patients are at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events, particularly during the immediate period. Yet some patients are at higher risk than others, owing to their clinical characteristics and comorbidities, these high-risk patients are less often treated with guideline-recommended therapies. Aim To examine temporal trends in treatment and outcomes of patients with MI according to the TIMI risk score for secondary prevention (TRS2°P), a recently validated risk stratification tool. Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients with an acute MI, who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were discharged alive between 2004–2016. Temporal trends were examined in the early (2004–2010) and late (2011–2016) time-periods. Patients were stratified by the TRS2°P to a low (≤1), intermediate (2) or high-risk group (≥3). Clinical outcomes included 30-day MACE (death, MI, target vessel revascularization, coronary artery bypass grafting, unstable angina or stroke) and 1-year mortality. Results Among 4921 patients, 31% were low-risk, 27% intermediate-risk and 42% high-risk. Compared to low and intermediate-risk patients, high-risk patients were older, more commonly female, and had more comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. They presented more often with non ST elevation MI and 3-vessel disease. High-risk patients were less likely to receive drug eluting stents and potent anti-platelet drugs, among other guideline-recommended therapies. Evidently, they experienced higher 30-day MACE (8.1% vs. 3.9% and 2.1% in intermediate and low-risk, respectively, P<0.001) and 1-year mortality (10.4% vs. 3.9% and 1.1% in intermediate and low-risk, respectively, P<0.001). During time, comparing the early to the late-period, the use of potent antiplatelets and statins increased among the entire cohort (P<0.001). However, only the high-risk group demonstrated a significantly lower 30-day MACE (P=0.001). During time, there were no differences in 1-year mortality rate among all risk categories. Temporal trends in 30-day MACE by TRS2°P Conclusion Despite a better application of guideline-recommended therapies, high-risk patients after MI are still relatively undertreated. Nevertheless, they demonstrated the most notable improvement in outcomes over time.


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1796-1796
Author(s):  
Luc-Matthieu Fornecker ◽  
Therese Aurran-Schleinitz ◽  
Anne-Sophie Michallet ◽  
Bruno Cazin ◽  
Jehan Dupuis ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1796 Introduction: FCR chemoimmunotherapy is recommended as first line therapy for fit cll patients. Since the 2007 EBMT guidelines based on the previously published trials using FCR, the definition of high risk CLL has evolved, to include biologic parameters (TP53 disruption by deletion/mutation, high b2-microglobulin level, IgVH unmutated, complex karyotype), refractoriness (progression during fluda-based regimen or within 6mo of completion), and also remission duration (high risk if PFS after FCR <24mo, ultra-high risk if TTNT <24–36mo with TP53 del/mut). However, few data are available regarding the characteristiscs, response rate and outcome of CLL patients treated in second line after FCR first line. Patients and methods: In this multicentric retrospective study, we collected data from 117 patients who relapsed after FCR first line therapy and received second-line therapy (according to NCI2008 guidelines). Results: At the time of initial FCR therapy: patients characteristics were as follows: Binet B/C 87.2%, unmutated IgVH 52.2%, del11q 25.6% (n=30/81 with FISH available), del17p 6.8% (n=8/87 with FISH available), bulk>5cm 22%, complex karyotype 21% (n=12/57 with karyotype available). FCR yielded 93% ORR, with 66% clinical CR, 27% PR, and 7% failed to respond. Median PFS and TTNT were 27mo and 32.5mo, respectively. At the time of relapse: patients characteristics were as follows: del11q 16.4% (n=19/65 with FISH available), del17p 19% (n=22/77), bulk>5cm 26%, complex karyotype 44% (n=24/54 with karyotype available). According to FCR remission duration, 11.1% of patients were considered as truly FCR-refractory, 47% had PFS<24mo, 34.2% had TTNT<24mo. TTNT<24mo after FCR was correlated to age>65y, del17p (20% vs 0%) and complex karyotype (38% vs11%), but not with gender, IgVH status, del11q, or bulk>5cm. Based on FCR-refractoriness, or TTNT<24mo and/or del17p, 53 patients were considered as ultra-high risk (45.3%). Various regimen were used for second-line treatment after FCR: R-bendamustine (n=47, 40.2%), alemtuzumab-based therapy (single agent or with chemo/dexa, n=22, 18.8%), R-CHOP (n=15, 12.8%), FCR (n=14, 12%), and other miscellaneous regimens (as follows: R-alkylator (n=6, 5.1%), R-DHAP (n=4, 3.4%), R-methylprednisolone (n=3, 2.6%), or investigational drugs (n=6, 5.1%)). Thus, 74.3% of patients received a second course including rituximab-based chemotherapy. Overall response rate was 78.4%, with 13.8% clinical CR, 64.6% PR, and 21.6% failure/stable disease. 14 pts (12%) underwent stem cell transplantations, 8 had maintenance therapy ongoing (ofatumumab, alemtuzumab, or lenalidomide). With regards to factors defining high-risk relapse, distribution of salvage therapies was as follows: As expected, a second course of FCR was seldom used in high-risk patients. Among ultra-high risk patients, 30.3% received R-benda, 11.3% Alem-based Rx, 32% R-CHOP and 18% the miscellaneous regimens described above. After second-line therapy, median PFS was 12 months, median TTNT was 14mo, and median OS was 36mo (20 deaths). On univariate analysis, complex karyotype (p=0.04) but not del17p (p=0.1), PFS<24mo (p=0.028) and TTNT<24mo (p=0.04) correlated with OS. Regarding treatment, OS was significantly improved in R-bendamustine-treated patients, as compared to alem-based or CHOP regimen (p=0.01). Most importantly, patients who received an allogeneic transplant benefited from significantly prolonged OS (at 4y, 70% vs 40%, p=0.03). Of note, only one patient treated with R-benda received allotransplant. Conclusions: This study shows that there are no consensus for second line therapy after FCR. Second line trials after FCR therapy are warranted. Definition of high-risk subsets of patients at relapse after FCR is of upmost importance in the management of CLL, to compare second-line strategies. Our data suggest that R-bendamustine is an efficient regimen even in high-risk patients (complex karyotype, PFS<24mo, TTNT<24mo). These data are important since this immunochemotherapy is now used as the backbone for combination with new compounds (ibrutinib, GS1101, GDC-199). Disclosures: Aurran-Schleinitz: Roche: Honoraria. Leblond:Roche: Advisory Board Other, Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1577-1577
Author(s):  
Deesha Sarma ◽  
So Yeon Kim ◽  
David H. Henry

1577 Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) poses a significant health risk to cancer patients and is one of the leading causes of death among this population. The most effective way to prevent VTE and reduce its prominence as a public health burden is by identifying high-risk patients and administering prophylactic measures. In 2008, Khorana et al. developed a model that classified patients by risk based on clinical factors. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to test this model’s efficacy, on 150 patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy at an outpatient oncology clinic between January 1 and August 1, 2011. We aggregated data and assigned points based on the five factors in the Khorana model: site of cancer with 2 points for very high-risk site and 1 point for high-risk site, 1 point each for leukocyte counts more than 11 x 109/L, platelet counts greater than 350 X 109/L, hemoglobin levels less than 100 g/L and/or the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 (Khorana et al., Blood 2008). Based on this scoring system, patients with 0 points were grouped into the low-risk category, those with 1-2 points were considered intermediate-risk, and those with 3-4 points were classified as high-risk. Results: As shown in the table, VTE incidence for the low-risk group was 1.9%, intermediate-risk group was 3.9%, and high-risk group was 9.1%. Conclusions: High-risk patients were about 4.5 times more likely to develop a VTE than low risk patients. These results provide valuable insight in determining which patients might benefit from prophylaxis and in motivating the design of prospective clinical trials that assess the VTE predictive model in various ambulatory cancer settings. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1015-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ash A Alizadeh ◽  
James S. McClellan ◽  
Jason R. Gotlib ◽  
Steven Coutre ◽  
Ravindra Majeti ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1015 Poster Board I-37 Background: Early mortality, mostly from hemorrhagic complications, occurs in less than 10% of patients currently treated in clinical trials for acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). However, data about the proportion of patients developing such complications prior to clinical trial enrollment are scarce in the literature (Sanz M, et al Blood 2009). Approximately 5% of newly diagnosed patients with APL have been reported not to be eligible for participation in clinical trials due to very poor clinical condition, and their outcome has never been reported. However, enrollment on clinical trials may be difficult in specific clinical situations, such as after hours/weekend admissions and/or emergent requirement for therapy. This study reports the incidence, time of occurrence and clinical features of APL patients with a focus on early mortality. Methods: 150 consecutive APL patients treated at Stanford University between 8/1986 and 7/2009 were identified. Thirteen patients were excluded for lack of appropriate clinical information. Clinical features of patients with APL were analyzed for factors that might be relate to prognosis, including age, gender, white blood cell count, platelet count, fibrinogen, PTT, and INR. Continuous variables were compared with the t-test and categorical variables by Fisher's exact test or X-square statistic. The Kaplan–Meier method was applied to assess overall survival time. Results: Of the 137 patients included in this analysis, the median age at diagnosis was 45 (1-93) years and 78 (57%) were females. Using the PETHEMA criteria, there were 37, 46 and 20 patients with high-, intermediate- and low-risk disease (34 patients could not be classified based on partial/missing data). With a median follow-up time of 748 (0-6,235) days for the entire cohort, 52 (38%) have died. 19 (14%) and 11 (8%) of these patients died within 7 and 3 days of presentation, respectively. Patients with high-risk features had a 13% and 24% chance of dying with 3 and 7 days of presentation, respectively, with significantly inferior outcomes (p=0.045) when compared to those with intermediate-risk patients (6% and 13%) and low-risk disease (5% and 5%). Patients with unknown risk category faired similarly to low-risk patients. The most common cause of early mortality in these 19 patients was intracranial hemorrhage (n=11). Patients with early death (ED) (either <=3 or <=7 days) tended to be older than APL patients with non-early deaths (>7d), or APL patients alive as of their last follow-up (median age 54 years vs. 50 years vs. 39 years), and were more likely to have higher risk disease, though coagulopathy appeared not significantly different amongst the groups. Median fibrinogen, PTT and INR for each individual group are presented on Table 1. The 3-year overall survival (% +/- SE) of the low, intermediate, and high risk patients was 90+/-7, 74+/-7, and 64+/-8, respectively, though early mortality (death within 7 days) was a major determinant of this stratification (p=0.045). Conclusions: Risk of early death in APL patients appears to be higher than previously reported in clinical trials, where trial registration may exclude patients requiring urgent therapeutic interventions. In this cohort, 25% and 13% patients with high- and intermediate-risk APL died within 7 days of presentation, respectively. Risk group stratification was very predictive of risk of early death. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (19) ◽  
pp. 3101-3106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott E. Eggener ◽  
Ofer Yossepowitch ◽  
Joseph A. Pettus ◽  
Mark E. Snyder ◽  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
...  

Purpose Prognostic factors for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are well established. However, the risk profile is unknown for patients with recurrent RCC after a nephrectomy for localized disease. Patients and Methods From January 1989 to July 2005, we identified patients with localized RCC treated by nephrectomy who subsequently developed recurrent disease. We applied a validated prognostic scoring system previously developed for patients with metastatic RCC. Each patient was given a total risk score of 0 to 5, with one point for each of five prognostic variables (recurrence < 12 months after nephrectomy, serum calcium > 10 mg/dL, hemoglobin < lower limit of normal, lactate dehydrogenase > 1.5× upper limit of normal, and Karnofsky performance status < 80%). Patients were categorized into low- (score = 0), intermediate- (score = 1 to 2), and high-risk subgroups (score = 3 to 5). Results Our final cohort included 118 patients, with a median survival time of 21 months from the time of recurrence. Median follow-up time for survivors was 27 months. Overall survival was strongly associated with risk group category (P < .0001). Low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk criteria were fulfilled in 34%, 50%, and 16% of patients, respectively. Median survival time for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients was 76, 25, and 6 months, respectively. Two-year overall survival rates for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients were 88% (95% CI, 77% to 99%), 51% (95% CI, 37% to 65%), and 11% (95% CI, 0% to 24%), respectively. Conclusion At disease recurrence after nephrectomy for localized disease, a scoring system based on objective clinical and laboratory data provides meaningful risk stratification for both patient counseling and clinical trial entry.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R Ardern-Jones ◽  
Hang T.T. Phan ◽  
Florina Borca ◽  
Matthew Stammers ◽  
James Batchelor ◽  
...  

Background The success of early dexamethasone therapy for hospitalised COVID-19 cases in treatment of Sars-CoV-2 infection may predominantly reflect its anti-inflammatory action against a hyperinflammation (HI) response. It is likely that there is substantial heterogeneity in HI responses in COVID-19. Methods Blood CRP, ferritin, neutrophil, lymphocyte and platelet counts were scored to assess HI (HI5) and combined with a validated measure of generalised medical deterioration (NEWS2) before day 2. Our primary outcome was 28 day mortality from early treatment with dexamethasone stratified by HI5-NEWS2 status. Findings Of 1265 patients, high risk of HI (high HI5-NEWS2) (n=367, 29.0%) conferred a strikingly increased mortality (36.0% vs 7.8%; Age adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 5.9; 95% CI 3.6-9.8, p<0.001) compared to the low risk group (n= 455, 36.0%). An intermediate risk group (n= 443, 35.0%) also showed significantly higher mortality than the low risk group (17.6% vs 7.8%), aHR 2.2, p=0.005). Early dexamethasone treatment conferred a 50.0% reduction in mortality in the high risk group (36.0% to 18.0%, aHR 0.56, p=0.007). The intermediate risk group showed a trend to reduction in mortality (17.8% to 10.3%, aHR 0.82, p=0.46) which was not observed in the low risk group (7.8% to 9.2%, aHR 1.4, p =0.31). Interpretation The HI5-NEWS2 measured at COVID-19 diagnosis, strongly predicts mortality at 28 days. Significant reduction in mortality with early dexamethasone treatment was only observed in the high risk group. Therefore, the HI5-NEWS2 score could be utilised to stratify randomised clinical trials to test whether intensified anti-inflammatory therapy would further benefit high risk patients and whether alternative approaches would benefit low risk groups. Considering its recognised morbidity, we suggest that early dexamethasone should not be routinely prescribed for HI5-NEWS2 low risk individuals with COVID-19 and clinicians should cautiously assess the risk benefit of this intervention. Funding No external funding.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2606-2606
Author(s):  
Tze Shin Leong ◽  
Sen Mui Tan ◽  
Lee Ping Chew ◽  
Tee Chuan Ong ◽  
Siew Lian Chong ◽  
...  

Background: Literature on Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) survival and prognostic factors were often derived from strict trial studies from developed country. A simple yet practical prognosis index has not been developed and tested in resource limited setting such as Malaysia. We described the treatment outcome and designed a 10 point prognostic index to predict survival of adult AML (non-M3) in real clinical practice in Malaysia. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected and analyzed from all adults with AML diagnosed and treated from 2007 to 2017 in three main hematology centers in Malaysia, Ampang Hospital, Sarawak General Hospital and Miri General Hospital. Treatment pattern and survival outcome were described. Multivariable analysis using Cox regression statistics were performed to identify significant prognostic variables affecting overall survival. Each variable were assigned points based on hazard ratios. A sum of the points led to a maximum score of 10. Patients were then categorized into low (0 point), intermediate (1 to 3 points) or high-risk group (4 points or above). Results: Demographics and treatment outcome of patients are shown in Table 1 & 2. There were 1277 adult patients, diagnosed with AML where 86.5% (n= 1106) of them were non M3 AML. Out of these, 908 patients (82.2%) received intensive chemotherapy treatment. Median age of diagnosis was 45 years. The remission post induction rate was 64.3% with induction death, refractory and relapse rate of 8.8%, 20.0% and 27.7% respectively. Median overall survival (OS) and Event Free Survival (EFS) time was 15 months and 12 months. The 3-year OS and EFS was 32.9% and 28.5% respectively. At the time of analysis, 66.1% of patients were dead (n=600) with disease progression being the main cause of death (n=416, 45.8%). Three year overall OS for patients who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (n=301, 33.1%) versus patients without transplantation were 53.7 % versus 22.0 % (HR 2.597, p <0.001). Cumulative incidence of relapsed and non-relapse mortality for transplant patients, shown in Figure 1 were 27.5% and 22.1%. Multivariate analysis in Table 3 showed that age 60 years old and above, male gender, white cell count more than 100 x 109 /L ,relapsed less than 12 months of treatment, refractory state after induction and high risk genetic group (based on EuropeanLeukemiaNet/Medical Research Council risk stratification by genetics) are prognostic factors associated with worse OS and EFS. The information was used to develop a 10 point prognostic index based on calculation described in Table 3. Overall survival decreased with each additional index point. When stratified according to risk group, the 3 year OS for low risk, intermediate risk and high risk group was 53.3%, 34.3% and 4.9% respectively. This is shown in Table 4 & Figure 2. Relapse rate was also lower in the low-risk group (8.8%), compared to intermediate-risk group (19.2%) and high-risk group (35.2%). Comparing transplant and non transplant cohort shown in Figure 3, there was no survival benefit in the low-risk group (58.6% vs 49.2%, p=0.122) but significant survival benefit in both intermediate-risk group (56.6% vs 23%, p<0.001) and adverse-risk group (13% vs 7%, p=0.002). Discussion/Conclusion: This is one of few survival studies that involved patients of different ethic groups in Asia (Malay, Chinese, Indian and native Borneo Sarawakians). Our results are comparable to data from large population based database such as US SEER and EURO CARE. This is the first prognostic index incorporating genetics, baseline characteristics and dynamic response, eg. refractory and/or relapsed post induction in non M3 AML. The results reaffirmed the importance of these factors in determining the clinical outcome and prognosis of patients with AML. When stratified using our 10 point prognostic index, our cohort of patients who is in low risk group has lower relapse rate and did not have significant survival benefit from allogeneic transplant compare to stratification using only the ELN/MRC genetic classification.(Table 5 & 6). In resource limited setting, measurable residual disease (MRD) monitoring and advanced genetic testing are difficult financially. This prognostic scoring index is an economical and practical alternative to guide physicians on treatment after induction therapy. However, it still needs to be validated by a larger cohort of patients in a prospective study. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4718-4718
Author(s):  
Afsaneh M. Shariatpanahi ◽  
Sarah Grasedieck ◽  
Matthew C. Jarvis ◽  
Faezeh Borzooee ◽  
Reuben S. Harris ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The prognosis of MM is determined by affected organs, tumor burden as measured by e.g., the international staging system (ISS), disease biology such as cytogenetic abnormalities, and response to therapy. The outcome of high-risk MM patients classified by ISS or adverse risk cytogenetics is not uniform and patients show heterogeneous survival. Recent insights into the pathogenesis of MM highlighted genome/transcriptome editing as well as inflammation as drivers for the onset and progression of MM. We hypothesized that inclusion of molecular features into risk stratification could potentially resolve the challenge of accurately distinguishing between high-risk and low-risk MM patients at initial diagnosis and improve outcome. Aim: We aimed to create a simple molecular risk score to identify unrecognized patient subgroups, who have been previously misclassified by current risk stratifiers. Method: The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation CoMMpass study genomics dataset, combining mRNA Seq and clinical data from more than 700 MM patients, allowed us to evaluate the prognostic value of demographic and clinical parameters, cytogenetics, and gene expression levels of APOBEC genes as well as inflammation-modulating cytokines in MM patients. We calculated hazard ratios and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for all extracted features. Combining clinical variables that were significantly associated with PFS and OS, we then applied machine learning approaches to identify the most accurate classification model to define a new risk score that is easy to compute and able to stratify NDMM patients more accurately than cytogenetics-based classifiers. Based on a Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis, we then evaluated the performance of our newly built EI score in sub-classifying of current multiple myeloma risk stratifiers. Results: Based on machine learning models, we defined a weighted OS/PFS risk score (Editor-Inflammation (EI) score) based on mRNA expression of APOBEC2, APOBEC3B, IL11, TGFB1, TGFB3, as well as ß2-microglobulin and LDH serum levels. We showed that the EI score subclassified patients into high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk prognostic groups and demonstrated superior performance (C-index: 0.76) compared to ISS (C-index: 0.66) and R-ISS (C-index: 0.64). We further showed that EI low-risk patients do not benefit from autograft and maintenance therapy. Re-classification of ISS (Figure 1a, b, c) and R-ISS risk groups further confirmed the superiority of the EI score. In addition, the EI score identified previously unrecognized distinct subgroups of MM patients with adverse risk cytogenetics but good prognosis (Figure 1d, e, f). For example, the EI score excellently subclassified del(17p) MM patients into three main risk subgroups including a super low-risk group (none of them has p53 mut) with 5-year OS of 100%, an intermediate-risk group (30% of these patients also have p53 mut) with 5-year OS rate of 75%, and a very poor prognosis group of patients (40% of these patients also have p53 mut) with 5-year OS rate of 0% (2y OS: 40%) (Figure 1f). In line, we could show that patients with del(17p) and high EI score exhibit an enrichment of APOBEC induced genomic mutations compared to intermediate-risk and low-risk patients supporting the hypothesis that del(17p) along with high APOBEC expression levels activate the APOBEC mutation program and thus create an optimal environment for tumor progression. These findings support the necessity of a prognostic score that more accurately reflects MM disease biology. Conclusion: Although MM is considered as an incurable disease, an improved risk stratification could help to identify previously unrecognized low- and high-risk patient subgroups that are over- or undertreated and lead to improved outcomes. Our EI score is a simple score that is based on recent insights into MM biology and accurately identifies high-risk and low-risk newly diagnosed MM patients as well as misclassified MM patients in different cytogenetic and ISS risk subgroups. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document