Back

Impact Of Conditioning Intensity And Genomics On Relapse After Allogeneic Transplantation For Patients With Myelodysplastic Syndrome

Dillon, L. W.; Gui, G.; Logan, B. R.; Fei, M.; Ghannam, J.; Li, Y.; Licon, A.; Alyea, E. P.; Bashey, A.; Devine, S. M.; Fernandez, H. F.; Giralt, S.; Hamadani, M.; Howard, A.; Maziarz, R. T.; Porter, D. L.; Warlick, E. D.; Pasquini, M. C.; Scott, B. L.; Horwitz, M. E.; Deeg, H. J.; Hourigan, C. S.

2020-08-31 oncology
10.1101/2020.08.25.20138461
Show abstract

Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients are at risk of relapse after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). The utility of ultra-deep genomic testing to predict, and the impact of conditioning intensity to prevent, MDS relapse are unknown. Targeted error-corrected DNA sequencing was performed on pre-conditioning blood samples from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 0901 phase III randomized clinical trial which compared outcomes by alloHCT conditioning intensity in adult patients with less than 5% marrow myeloblasts and no leukemic myeloblasts in blood on morphological analysis at the time of pre-transplant assessment. Using a previously described set of 10 gene regions, 42% of patients had mutations detectable prior to randomization to reduced intensity or myeloablative conditioning. Testing positive was associated with increased rates of relapse and decreased overall survival. In those testing positive, relapse rates were higher and relapse-free survival was lower in reduced intensity versus myeloablative conditioning arms. Testing additional genes, including those associated with MDS, did not improve prognostication. This study provides evidence that post-transplant relapse rates in MDS patients are highest in those with pre-transplant genomic evidence of high-risk disease. In those testing positive, randomization to myeloablative conditioning lowered but did not eliminate relapse risk.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Leukemia
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
13.8%
2
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 18%
8.7%
3
JCO Precision Oncology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 10%
7.9%
5
Journal of Clinical Investigation
based on 50 papers
Top 0.4%
4.7%
6
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 4%
3.1%
7
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
based on 14 papers
Top 0.6%
3.1%
8
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
based on 100 papers
Top 3%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
Blood Advances
based on 16 papers
Top 0.5%
2.9%
10
Clinical Cancer Research
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
2.9%
11
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 81%
2.6%
12
Frontiers in Oncology
based on 34 papers
Top 4%
2.4%
13
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
based on 13 papers
Top 1%
2.4%
14
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
2.4%
15
JAMA
based on 17 papers
Top 0.5%
1.4%
16
Clinical Epigenetics
based on 21 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
17
British Journal of Haematology
based on 12 papers
Top 0.6%
1.2%
18
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 3%
1.2%
19
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 24%
1.2%
20
Frontiers in Genetics
based on 32 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
21
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 17%
0.8%
22
npj Precision Oncology
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
23
Aging
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Clinical and Translational Medicine
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
26
Blood
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
0.7%
27
Nature Medicine
based on 88 papers
Top 18%
0.7%