ArticleBlood science (Baltimore, Md.)2023
Evaluation of new IPSS-Molecular model and comparison of different prognostic systems in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome.
Article in Blood science (Baltimore, Md.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Utility of Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification in the Genetic Assessment of Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Using Artificial Intelligence to Enhance Myelodysplastic Syndrome Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Assessing the Relevance of Non-molecular Prognostic Systems for Myelodysplastic Syndrome in the Era of Next-Generation Sequencing.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Clinical Characteristics and Significance of Preclinically Detecting Biallelic Mutations in theLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Threefold IPSS-M reclassification outperforms original stratification in predicting post-transplant outcomes for MDS patients.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A risk-adapted treatment strategy is of crucial importance in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Previous risk prognostic scoring systems did not integrate molecular abnormalities. The new IPSS-Molecular (IPSS-M) model, combing genomic profiling with hematologic and cytogenetic parameters, was recently developed to evaluate the associations with leukemia-free survival (LFS), leukemic transformation, and overall survival (OS). However, it has not yet been widely validated in clinics. This study aims to further validate the prognostic power of IPSS-M based on real-world data and to compare the prognostic value of different scoring systems in patients with MDS. IPSS-M Web calculator was used to calculate a tailored IPSS-M score of the enrolled patient (N = 255), and the risk category was defined correspondingly. We next compared the IPSS-M prognostic power to that of IPSS, IPSS-R, and WPSS. We found that IPSS-M risk classification was statistically significant for 3-year OS and LFS. Compared with other tools, IPSS-M was superior in sensitivity and accuracy for 3-year OS and LFS. The mapping C-index between IPSS-R and IPSS-M categories resulted in improved discrimination across the OS, but not LFS and leukemic transformation. The result of different treatment options indicated that allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can result in a better OS than those without allo-HSCT. In conclusion, IPSS-M was a valuable tool for risk stratification compared with other risk prognostic scoring systems. However, more studies should be conducted to explore the appropriate treatment options for different groups stratified by IPSS-M.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.