Cargando…

AIPSS‐MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib

BACKGROUND: In myelofibrosis (MF), new model scores are continuously proposed to improve the ability to better identify patients with the worst outcomes. In this context, the Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Scoring System for Myelofibrosis (AIPSS‐MF), and the Response to Ruxolitinib after 6 month...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duminuco, Andrea, Mosquera‐Orgueira, Adrian, Nardo, Antonella, Di Raimondo, Francesco, Palumbo, Giuseppe Alberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10598243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37553891
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1881
_version_ 1785125511983267840
author Duminuco, Andrea
Mosquera‐Orgueira, Adrian
Nardo, Antonella
Di Raimondo, Francesco
Palumbo, Giuseppe Alberto
author_facet Duminuco, Andrea
Mosquera‐Orgueira, Adrian
Nardo, Antonella
Di Raimondo, Francesco
Palumbo, Giuseppe Alberto
author_sort Duminuco, Andrea
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In myelofibrosis (MF), new model scores are continuously proposed to improve the ability to better identify patients with the worst outcomes. In this context, the Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Scoring System for Myelofibrosis (AIPSS‐MF), and the Response to Ruxolitinib after 6 months (RR6) during the ruxolitinib (RUX) treatment, could play a pivotal role in stratifying these patients. AIMS: We aimed to validate AIPSS‐MF in patients with MF who started RUX treatment, compared to the standard prognostic scores at the diagnosis and the RR6 scores after 6 months of treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: At diagnosis, the AIPSS‐MF performs better than the widely used IPSS for primary myelofibrosis (C‐index 0.636 vs. 0.596) and MYSEC‐PM for secondary (C‐index 0.616 vs. 0.593). During RUX treatment, we confirmed the leading role of RR6 in predicting an inadequate response by these patients to JAKi therapy compared to AIPSS‐MF (0.682 vs. 0.571). CONCLUSION: The new AIPSS‐MF prognostic score confirms that it can adequately stratify this subgroup of patients already at diagnosis better than standard models, laying the foundations for new prognostic models developed tailored to the patient based on artificial intelligence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10598243
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105982432023-10-26 AIPSS‐MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib Duminuco, Andrea Mosquera‐Orgueira, Adrian Nardo, Antonella Di Raimondo, Francesco Palumbo, Giuseppe Alberto Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Original Articles BACKGROUND: In myelofibrosis (MF), new model scores are continuously proposed to improve the ability to better identify patients with the worst outcomes. In this context, the Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Scoring System for Myelofibrosis (AIPSS‐MF), and the Response to Ruxolitinib after 6 months (RR6) during the ruxolitinib (RUX) treatment, could play a pivotal role in stratifying these patients. AIMS: We aimed to validate AIPSS‐MF in patients with MF who started RUX treatment, compared to the standard prognostic scores at the diagnosis and the RR6 scores after 6 months of treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: At diagnosis, the AIPSS‐MF performs better than the widely used IPSS for primary myelofibrosis (C‐index 0.636 vs. 0.596) and MYSEC‐PM for secondary (C‐index 0.616 vs. 0.593). During RUX treatment, we confirmed the leading role of RR6 in predicting an inadequate response by these patients to JAKi therapy compared to AIPSS‐MF (0.682 vs. 0.571). CONCLUSION: The new AIPSS‐MF prognostic score confirms that it can adequately stratify this subgroup of patients already at diagnosis better than standard models, laying the foundations for new prognostic models developed tailored to the patient based on artificial intelligence. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10598243/ /pubmed/37553891 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1881 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Duminuco, Andrea
Mosquera‐Orgueira, Adrian
Nardo, Antonella
Di Raimondo, Francesco
Palumbo, Giuseppe Alberto
AIPSS‐MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib
title AIPSS‐MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib
title_full AIPSS‐MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib
title_fullStr AIPSS‐MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib
title_full_unstemmed AIPSS‐MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib
title_short AIPSS‐MF machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib
title_sort aipss‐mf machine learning prognostic score validation in a cohort of myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10598243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37553891
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1881
work_keys_str_mv AT duminucoandrea aipssmfmachinelearningprognosticscorevalidationinacohortofmyelofibrosispatientstreatedwithruxolitinib
AT mosqueraorgueiraadrian aipssmfmachinelearningprognosticscorevalidationinacohortofmyelofibrosispatientstreatedwithruxolitinib
AT nardoantonella aipssmfmachinelearningprognosticscorevalidationinacohortofmyelofibrosispatientstreatedwithruxolitinib
AT diraimondofrancesco aipssmfmachinelearningprognosticscorevalidationinacohortofmyelofibrosispatientstreatedwithruxolitinib
AT palumbogiuseppealberto aipssmfmachinelearningprognosticscorevalidationinacohortofmyelofibrosispatientstreatedwithruxolitinib