Revised Cytogenetic Risk Stratification in Primary Myelofibrosis: A Mayo Clinic Study of 903 Patients

Background : Cytogenetic abnormalities in PMF have been broadly classified into “favorable” and “unfavorable” risk categories. The latter include +8, -7/7q-, i(17q), inv(3), -5/5q-, 12p-, 11q rearrangements and complex karyotype (Leukemia. 2011;25:82). In a more recent study, we had demonstrated an even worse prognosis for patients with monosomal karyotype (MK), inv(3) and i(17q) abnormalities (Blood. 2011;118:4595). In the current study, we revisited the topic using a larger database. Methods : PMF diagnosis was according to World Health Organization criteria ( Blood . 2009;114:937). Cytogenetic analysis and reporting was done according to the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (Cytogenetic and genome research . 2013. Prepublished on 2013/07/03 as DOI 10.1159/000353118). Assignment to “normal” karyotype required a minimum of 10 metaphases analyzed. A complex karyotype was defined as the presence of 3 or more distinct structural or numeric abnormalities. MK was defined as 2 or more distinct autosomal monosomies or single autosomal monosomy associated with at least one structural abnormality (JCO. 2008;26:4791). Results : A total of 903 patients (median age 65 years; range 19-92; 63% males) met the above stipulations for study eligibility. Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS)-plus risk distribution (JCO. 2011;29:392) was high in 344 (38%) patients, intermediate-2 in 334 (37%), intermediate-1 in 128 (14%) and low in 97 (11%). 472 patients were annotated for JAK2/CALR/MPL mutations; 276 (58%) harbored JAK2 , 117 (25%) CALR and 33 (7%) MPL mutations. Abnormal karyotype was documented in 437 (48%) patients and included sole abnormalities of 20q- ( n =71; 16%), 13q- (n=57; 13%), +8 ( n =25; 5%), -7/7q- ( n =17; 4%) and +9 ( n =16; 3%). 22 (5%) patients displayed MK and 31 (7%) complex karyotype without MK. At a median follow-up time of 3 years, 634 (70%) deaths and 65 blast transformations (BT; 7%) were recorded. A step-wise survival analysis, using “normal karyotype” and “MK/inv(3)/i(17q)” as comparators for “low” and “very high risk” categories, respectively, resulted in four distinct cytogenetic risk designations: very high (MK, inv(3), i(17q), -7/7q-, 11q or 12p abnormalities; n =67), high (complex without MK, two abnormalities not included in very high risk category, 5q-, +8, other autosomal trisomies except +9, and other sole abnormalities not included in other risk categories; n =164), intermediate (sole abnormalities of 20q-, 1q duplication or any other translocation, and -Y or other sex chromosome abnormality; n =133) and low (normal or sole abnormalities of 13q- or +9; n =539); the corresponding median survivals were 0.9, 2.6, 3.8 and 4.6 years, with respective HR (95% CI) of 4.4 (3.3-5.8), 2.0 (1.6-2.4) and 1.3 (1.03-1.6). Very high (HR 6.1, 95% CI 2.9-13.2) and high (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.1) risk categories were also associated with higher risk of BT. There was no significant correlation between the revised cytogenetic risk stratification and JAK2/CALR/MPL mutational categories (p=0.22), but none of the triple-negative or MPL -mutated patients displayed “very high risk” karyotype. The revised cytogenetic model was also effective in risk-stratification of JAK2 or CALR mutated patients, when analyzed separately, and its prognostic relevance for survival was generally independent of JAK2/CALR/MPL mutational status (p<0.01), DIPSS (p<0.01) or DIPSS-plus (p<0.01). Comparison of the currently used “favorable” vs “unfavorable” with the revised cytogenetic risk model showed a significant number of patients with “favorable” karyotype ( n =213 of total 753) being re-assigned to high ( n =82) or intermediate ( n =131) risk categories. Conclusions : The currently used cytogenetic risk stratification in PMF is too broad and underestimates prognosis in a significant number of patients with “favorable” karyotype. We have developed a revised four-tier risk model that is independent of conventional risk models and JAK2/CALR/MPL mutational status and is expected to facilitate the development of genetics-based prognostic scoring systems in PMF. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.