ArticleBlood cancer journal2023
Validation of the molecular international prognostic scoring system in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes defined by international consensus classification.
Article in Blood cancer journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Beyond Genotype: Multidomain Biomarker-Integrated Risk Scores Reveal Prognostic phenotypes Among Individuals with High-RiskmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Application of next-generation sequencing in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome: from mechanisms to clinical practice.Blood science (Baltimore, Md.) · 2026Review
- Prognostic implications of genetic and transcriptomic abnormalities in MDS according to IPSS-R, IPSS-M, and the International Consensus Classification.Blood cancer journal · 2026Article
- T lymphocytes and natural killer cells in myelodysplastic syndromes: function, dysfunction, and therapeutic potential.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Prognostic impact of lymphocyte to monocyte ratio in patients with myelodysplastic neoplasms/syndromes.Blood research · 2025Article
- How to Read a Next-Generation Sequencing Report for AML and MDS? What Hematologists Need to Know.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- 14,441 Genomics-Based Validated Automated Comprehensive Clinicopathologic Correlations for Myeloid Neoplasms.Scientific data · 2025Article
- A clinico-genomic prognostic model for primary myelodysplastic neoplasm in Asia.Blood cancer journal · 2025Article
- Progress in the Genetics of Myelodysplastic Syndromes with a Latin American Perspective.Genes · 2025Review
- How I treat higher-risk MDS.Blood · 2025Review
- 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
- Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in elderly patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: Considerations and challenges.Seminars in hematology · 2024Review
- Comparison of the 2022 world health organization classification and international consensus classification in myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms.Blood cancer journal · 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
18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) have varied prognoses and require a risk-adapted treatment strategy for treatment optimization. Recently, a molecular prognostic model (Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS-M]) that combines clinical parameters, cytogenetic abnormalities, and mutation topography was proposed. This study validated the IPSS-M in 649 patients with primary MDS (based on the 2022 International Consensus Classification [ICC]) and compared its prognostic power to those of the IPSS and revised IPSS (IPSS-R). Overall, 42.5% of the patients were reclassified and 29.3% were up-staged from the IPSS-R. After the reclassification, 16.9% of the patients may receive different treatment strategies. The IPSS-M had greater discriminative potential than the IPSS-R and IPSS. Patients with high, or very high-risk IPSS-M might benefit from allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. IPSS-M, age, ferritin level, and the 2022 ICC categorization predicted outcomes independently. After analyzing demographic and genetic features, complementary genetic analyses, including KMT2A-PTD, were suggested for accurate IPSS-M categorization of patients with ASXL1, TET2, STAG2, RUNX1, SF3B1, SRSF2, DNMT3A, U2AF1, and BCOR mutations and those classified as MDS, not otherwise specified with single lineage dysplasia/multi-lineage dysplasia based on the 2022 ICC. This study confirmed that the IPSS-M can better risk-stratified MDS patients for optimized therapeutic decision-making.
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.