Skip to main content
Log in

Impact of marrow blasts percentage on high-grade myelodysplastic syndrome assessed using revised international prognostic scoring system

Annals of Hematology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Clinical trials and treatment guidelines for myelodysplastic syndrome depend on several prognostic scoring systems to stratify patients by risk. These include different variables: the degree of cytopenia, percentage of bone marrow blasts, and cytogenetics. Little is known about the impact of bone marrow blasts in patients with adverse cytogenetics. In this retrospective study, we analyzed 536 patients with high-grade myelodysplastic syndrome to examine the differences in survival for patients with different percentages of bone marrow blasts. The median overall survival in patients with ≥ 5% marrow blasts was not statistically different from that for patients with < 5% marrow blasts; however, the former group had a higher risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia (p < 0.001). Therefore, cytogenetics is the most important factor in our prognostic tools to determine survival outcomes for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, and patients with high-risk disease have poor prognosis irrespective of their marrow blasts percentage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greenberg PL, Tuechler H, Schanz J, Sanz G, Garcia-Manero G, Solé F, Bennett JM, Bowen D, Fenaux P, Dreyfus F, Kantarjian H, Kuendgen A, Levis A, Malcovati L, Cazzola M, Cermak J, Fonatsch C, le Beau MM, Slovak ML, Krieger O, Luebbert M, Maciejewski J, Magalhaes SM, Miyazaki Y, Pfeilstöcker M, Sekeres M, Sperr WR, Stauder R, Tauro S, Valent P, Vallespi T, van de Loosdrecht A, Germing U, Haase D (2012) Revised international prognostic scoring system for myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood 120(12):2454–2465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, Thiele J, Borowitz MJ, le Beau MM, Bloomfield CD, Cazzola M, Vardiman JW (2016) The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood 127(20):2391–2405

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA, Brunning RD, Borowitz MJ, Porwit A, Harris NL, le Beau MM, Hellström-Lindberg E, Tefferi A, Bloomfield CD (2009) The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood 114(5):937–951

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. NCCN. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network for Myelodysplastic Syndrome Version 2.2019. 2019; Available from: https://www.nccn.org/

  5. Sperling AS, Gibson CJ, Ebert BL (2016) The genetics of myelodysplastic syndrome: from clonal haematopoiesis to secondary leukaemia. Nat Rev Cancer 17:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Steensma DP (2015) Myelodysplastic syndromes: diagnosis and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc 90(7):969–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Steensma DP (2018) Myelodysplastic syndromes current treatment algorithm 2018. Blood Cancer Journal 8(5):47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fenaux P, Kiladjian JJ, Platzbecker U (2019) Luspatercept for the treatment of anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes and primary myelofibrosis. Blood 133(8):790–794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Aleshin A, Greenberg PL (2018) Molecular pathophysiology of the myelodysplastic syndromes: insights for targeted therapy. Blood Advances 2(20):2787–2797

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. DiNardo CD et al (2016) Interactions and relevance of blast percentage and treatment strategy among younger and older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Am J Hematol 91(2):227–232

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Braulke F, Platzbecker U, Müller-Thomas C, Götze K, Germing U, Brümmendorf TH, Nolte F, Hofmann WK, Giagounidis AA, Lübbert M, Greenberg PL, Bennett JM, Solé F, Mallo M, Slovak ML, Ohyashiki K, le Beau MM, Tüchler H, Pfeilstöcker M, Nösslinger T, Hildebrandt B, Shirneshan K, Aul C, Stauder R, Sperr WR, Valent P, Fonatsch C, Trümper L, Haase D, Schanz J (2015) Validation of cytogenetic risk groups according to International Prognostic Scoring Systems by peripheral blood CD34+FISH: results from a German diagnostic study in comparison with an international control group. Haematologica 100(2):205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aref Al-Kali.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This is a retrospective study, approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB and deemed minimal risk so informed consent waiver was obtained from the Mayo Clinic IRB.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alkharabsheh, O., Patnaik, M.M., Gangat, N. et al. Impact of marrow blasts percentage on high-grade myelodysplastic syndrome assessed using revised international prognostic scoring system. Ann Hematol 99, 513–518 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-020-03917-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-020-03917-7

Keywords

Navigation