Proposals for revised IWG 2018 hematological response criteria in patients with MDS included in clinical trials

Item does not contain fulltex

Consensus proposal for revised International Working Group 2023 response criteria for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

Myelodysplastic syndromes/myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are associated with variable clinical presentations and outcomes. The initial response criteria developed by the International Working Group (IWG) in 2000 have been used in clinical practice, clinical trials, regulatory reviews, and drug labels. Although the IWG criteria were revised in 2006 and 2018 (the latter focusing on lower-risk disease), limitations persist in their application to higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS) and their ability to fully capture the clinical benefits of novel investigational drugs or serve as valid surrogates for longer-term clinical end points (eg, overall survival). Further, issues related to the ambiguity and practicality of some criteria lead to variability in interpretation and interobserver inconsistency in reporting results from the same sets of data. Thus, we convened an international panel of 36 MDS experts and used an established modified Delphi process to develop consensus recommendations for updated response criteria that would be more reflective of patient-centered and clinically relevant outcomes in HR-MDS. Among others, the IWG 2023 criteria include changes in the hemoglobin threshold for complete remission (CR), the introduction of CR with limited count recovery and CR with partial hematologic recovery as provisional response criteria, the elimination of marrow CR, and specific recommendations for the standardization of time-to-event end points and the derivation and reporting of responses. The updated criteria should lead to a better correlation between patient-centered outcomes and clinical trial results in an era of multiple emerging new agents with novel mechanisms of action

Therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes deserve specific diagnostic sub-classification and risk-stratification-an approach to classification of patients with t-MDS.

In the current World Health Organization (WHO)-classification, therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes (t-MDS) are categorized together with therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and t-myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms into one subgroup independent of morphologic or prognostic features. Analyzing data of 2087 t-MDS patients from different international MDS groups to evaluate classification and prognostication tools we found that applying the WHO classification for p-MDS successfully predicts time to transformation and survival (both p < 0.001). The results regarding carefully reviewed cytogenetic data, classifications, and prognostic scores confirmed that t-MDS are similarly heterogeneous as p-MDS and therefore deserve the same careful differentiation regarding risk. As reference, these results were compared with 4593 primary MDS (p-MDS) patients represented in the International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS database (IWG-PM). Although a less favorable clinical outcome occurred in each t-MDS subset compared with p-MDS subgroups, FAB and WHO-classification, IPSS-R, and WPSS-R separated t-MDS patients into differing risk groups effectively, indicating that all established risk factors for p-MDS maintained relevance in t-MDS, with cytogenetic features having enhanced predictive power. These data strongly argue to classify t-MDS as a separate entity distinct from other WHO-classified t-myeloid neoplasms, which would enhance treatment decisions and facilitate the inclusion of t-MDS patients into clinical studies

Therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes deserve specific diagnostic sub-classification and risk-stratification-an approach to classification of patients with t-MDS

Data de publicació electrónica: 29-06-2020In the current World Health Organization (WHO)-classification, therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes (t-MDS) are categorized together with therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and t-myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms into one subgroup independent of morphologic or prognostic features. Analyzing data of 2087 t-MDS patients from different international MDS groups to evaluate classification and prognostication tools we found that applying the WHO classification for p-MDS successfully predicts time to transformation and survival (both p < 0.001). The results regarding carefully reviewed cytogenetic data, classifications, and prognostic scores confirmed that t-MDS are similarly heterogeneous as p-MDS and therefore deserve the same careful differentiation regarding risk. As reference, these results were compared with 4593 primary MDS (p-MDS) patients represented in the International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS database (IWG-PM). Although a less favorable clinical outcome occurred in each t-MDS subset compared with p-MDS subgroups, FAB and WHO-classification, IPSS-R, and WPSS-R separated t-MDS patients into differing risk groups effectively, indicating that all established risk factors for p-MDS maintained relevance in t-MDS, with cytogenetic features having enhanced predictive power. These data strongly argue to classify t-MDS as a separate entity distinct from other WHO-classified t-myeloid neoplasms, which would enhance treatment decisions and facilitate the inclusion of t-MDS patients into clinical studies

Therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes deserve specific diagnostic sub-classification and risk-stratification-an approach to classification of patients with t-MDS

In the current World Health Organization (WHO)-classification, therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes (t-MDS) are categorized together with therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and t-myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms into one subgroup independent of morphologic or prognostic features. Analyzing data of 2087 t-MDS patients from different international MDS groups to evaluate classification and prognostication tools we found that applying the WHO classification for p-MDS successfully predicts time to transformation and survival (both p < 0.001). The results regarding carefully reviewed cytogenetic data, classifications, and prognostic scores confirmed that t-MDS are similarly heterogeneous as p-MDS and therefore deserve the same careful differentiation regarding risk. As reference, these results were compared with 4593 primary MDS (p-MDS) patients represented in the International Working Group for Prognosis in MDS database (IWG-PM). Although a less favorable clinical outcome occurred in each t-MDS subset compared with p-MDS subgroups, FAB and WHO-classification, IPSS-R, and WPSS-R separated t-MDS patients into differing risk groups effectively, indicating that all established risk factors for p-MDS maintained relevance in t-MDS, with cytogenetic features having enhanced predictive power. These data strongly argue to classify t-MDS as a separate entity distinct from other WHO-classified t-myeloid neoplasms, which would enhance treatment decisions and facilitate the inclusion of t-MDS patients into clinical studies