Data-Driven Harmonization of 2022 Who and ICC Classifications of Myelodysplastic Syndromes/Neoplasms (MDS): A Study By the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS)
Authors: Lanino Luca , Ball Somedeb , Bewersdorf Jan Philipp , Marchetti Monia , Maggioni Giulia , Travaglino Erica , Al Ali Najla H , Fenaux Pierre , Platzbecker Uwe , Santini Valeria , Diez-Campelo Maria , Singh Avani M , Jain Akriti Gupta , Aguirre Luis E. , Tinsley-Vance Sara M. , Schwabkey Zaker I. , Chan Onyee , Xie Zhuoer , Brunner Andrew M. , Kuykendall Andrew T. , Bennett John M. , Buckstein Rena , Bejar Rafael , Carraway Hetty E. , DeZern Amy E. , Griffiths Elizabeth A. , Halene Stephanie , Hasserjian Robert , Lancet Jeffrey , List Alan F. , Loghavi Sanam , Odenike Olatoyosi , Padron Eric , Patnaik Mrinal M. , Roboz Gail J. , Stahl Maximilian , Sekeres Mikkael A. , Steensma David Peter , Savona Michael R. , Taylor Justin , Xu Mina , Sweet Kendra , Sallman David A , Nimer Stephen D. , Hourigan Christopher S. , Wei Andrew H. , Sauta Elisabetta , D'Amico Saverio , Asti Gianluca , Castellani Gastone , Borate Uma M. , Sanz Guillermo , Efficace Fabio , Gore Steven D. , Kim Tae Kon , Daver Naval , Garcia-Manero Guillermo , Rozman María , Orfao Alberto , Wang Sa A. , Foucar M. Kathy , Germing Ulrich , Haferlach Torsten , Scheinberg Phillip , Miyazaki Yasushi , Iastrebner Marcelo , Kulasekararaj Austin , Cluzeau Thomas , Kordasti Shahram , van de Loosdrecht Arjan A. , Ades Lionel , Zeidan Amer M. , Komrokji Rami S. , Della Porta Matteo Giovanni 
Published: December 2023

Background. The inclusion of gene mutations and chromosomal abnormalities in the 2022 WHO and ICC Classifications of MDS has enhanced diagnostic precision and is expected to improve clinical decision-making process. Although these two systems share similarities, clinically relevant discrepancies still exist and potentially cause inconsistency in their adoption in a clinical setting. In this study on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS), we adopted a data-driven approach to provide a harmonization roadmap between the 2022 WHO and ICC classification for MDS. A modified Delphi Process consensus approach is currently ongoing among icMDS experts to finalize a harmonized MDS classification scheme.

Methods. We analyzed retrospective international cohorts of patients with a diagnosis of MDS (n=7017) and AML (n=1002) according to WHO 2016 criteria. Hierarchical Dirichlet Processes were applied to define clusters capturing broad dependencies among all gene mutations and cytogenetic abnormalities. To investigate the features of importance and their impact on the clustering process, we employed the SHapley Additive exPlanations approach (SHAP). This allowed to define harmonized labels for each clinical entity. The clinical relevance of the unsupervised clustering was assessed through the analysis of phenotypic features and outcomes among each group. ( Blood 2022;140: 9828-9830)

Results. Patients' characteristics are summarized in Table 1. We identified 9 clusters, defined by specific genomic features. The cluster of highest hierarchical importance was characterized by biallelic inactivation of TP53 (biTP53). According to SHAP analysis, bi TP53 was defined as 2 or more TP53 mutations, or 1 mutation with copy number loss or cnLOH. Most patients assigned to bi TP53 cluster had TP53 VAF&gt;10% (77.9%) and complex karyotype (70.1%). Assignment to bi TP53 cluster was irrespective of blast count. Patients with monoallelic TP53 mutation segregated into other clusters. Hierarchically, the second cluster included patients with del(5q). SHAP analysis highlighted 5q deletion alone, or with one other chromosomal abnormality other than -7, and absence of bi TP53, as the most relevant features. Most of these patients had blast counts &lt;5% (88.1%). The third distinct cluster included patients with SF3B1 mutations (in the absence of concurrent del(7q), abn3q26.2, complex karyotype or RUNX1 mutation). Most patients with MDS and SF3B1 mutation had &lt;5% blasts (94.2%). Common co-mutated variants in the SF3B1 cluster included mutant DNMT3A (25.2%) and TET2 (38.3%).

Morphologically defined MDS cases (i.e., not meeting criteria for bi TP53, del(5q) or SF3B1) were preferentially assigned to the following additional clusters: SF3B1 and concurrent higher-risk mutations (e.g., RUNX1 and ASXL1); SRSF2 and concomitant TET2 mutations; U2AF1 mutations with del(20q), del(7q) or -7; SRSF2 with TET2 mutations and co-mutational patterns including RUNX1 and ASXL1; and AML-like genomic signatures. Our analyses suggest that morphologically defined MDS is characterized by a large heterogeneity in terms of mutation profiles, not entirely captured by the presence of unilineage versus multilineage dysplasia, percentage of bone marrow blasts, and presence of hypocellularity and fibrosis.

To better investigate the continuum between high risk MDS (i.e., patients with ≥10% blasts) and AML, an exploratory comparison was made using a cohort of AML (defined according to WHO 2016) patients analyzed using the same statistical methods. Only a partial overlap in genetic signatures was observed between MDS with ≥10% blasts and AML. However, similarities were observed between the AML-like MDS clusters (characterized by mutant NPM1, bZIP CEBPA, and Core Binding Factor abnormalities) and AML clusters defined by the same genetic signature, thus supporting the classification of these entities as AML, irrespective of blast count.

Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the utility of a data-driven approach based on advanced statistical methods to generate a harmonized classification for MDS. Table 2 shows a provisional, hierarchical classification algorithm. Further refinement of entity labels and classification criteria is the subject of the ongoing modified Delphi Process consensus approach among icMDS experts.