Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 222

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Classification and Personalized Prognostic Assessment on the Basis of Clinical and Genomic Features in Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Open access
Bersanelli, Matteo, Travaglino, Erica, Meggendorfer, Manja, Matteuzzi, Tommaso, Sala, Claudia, Mosca, Ettore, Chiereghin, Chiara, Di Nanni, Noemi, Gnocchi, Matteo, Zampini, Matteo, Rossi, Marianna, Maggioni, Giulia, Termanini, Alberto, Angelucci, Emanuele, Bernardi, Massimo, Borin, Lorenza, Bruno, Benedetto, Bonifazi, Francesca, Santini, Valeria, Bacigalupo, Andrea, Voso, Maria Teresa, Oliva, Esther, Riva, Marta, Ubezio, Marta, Morabito, Lucio, Campagna, Alessia, Saitta, Claudia, Savevski, Victor, Giampieri, Enrico, Remondini, Daniel, Passamonti, Francesco, Ciceri, Fabio, Bolli, Niccolò, Rambaldi, Alessandro, Kern, Wolfgang, Kordasti, Shahram, Sole, Francesc, Palomo, Laura, Sanz, Guillermo, Santoro, Armando, Platzbecker, Uwe, Fenaux, Pierre, Milanesi, Luciano, Haferlach, Torsten, Castellani, Gastone, Della Porta, Matteo G.·2021·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recurrently mutated genes and chromosomal abnormalities have been identified in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). We aim to integrate these genomic features into disease classification and prognostication. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 2,043 patients. Using Bayesian networks and Dirichlet processes, we combined mutations in 47 genes with cytogenetic abnormalities to identify genetic associations and subgroups. Random-effects Cox proportional hazards multistate modeling was used for developing prognostic models. An independent validation on 318 cases was performed. RESULTS: We identify eight MDS groups (clusters) according to specific genomic features. In five groups, dominant genomic features include splicing gene mutations ( SF3B1, SRSF2, and U2AF1) that occur early in disease history, determine specific phenotypes, and drive disease evolution. These groups display different prognosis (groups with SF3B1 mutations being associated with better survival). Specific co-mutation patterns account for clinical heterogeneity within SF3B1- and SRSF2-related MDS. MDS with complex karyotype and/or TP53 gene abnormalities and MDS with acute leukemia–like mutations show poorest prognosis. MDS with 5q deletion are clustered into two distinct groups according to the number of mutated genes and/or presence of TP53 mutations. By integrating 63 clinical and genomic variables, we define a novel prognostic model that generates personally tailored predictions of survival. The predicted and observed outcomes correlate well in internal cross-validation and in an independent external cohort. This model substantially improves predictive accuracy of currently available prognostic tools. We have created a Web portal that allows outcome predictions to be generated for user-defined constellations of genomic and clinical features. CONCLUSION: Genomic landscape in MDS reveals distinct subgroups associated with specific clinical features and discrete patterns of evolution, providing a proof of concept for next-generation disease classification and prognosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.20.01659

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 222

Metadata

Authors
Bersanelli, M., Travaglino, E., Meggendorfer, M., Matteuzzi, T., Sala, C., Mosca, E., Chiereghin, C., Di Nanni, N., Gnocchi, M., Zampini, M., Rossi, M., Maggioni, G., Termanini, A., Angelucci, E., Bernardi, M., Borin, L., Bruno, B., Bonifazi, F., Santini, V., Bacigalupo, A., Voso, M. T., Oliva, E., Riva, M., Ubezio, M., Morabito, L., Campagna, A., Saitta, C., Savevski, V., Giampieri, E., Remondini, D., Passamonti, F., Ciceri, F., Bolli, N., Rambaldi, A., Kern, W., Kordasti, S., Sole, F., Palomo, L., Sanz, G., Santoro, A., Platzbecker, U., Fenaux, P., Milanesi, L., Haferlach, T., Castellani, G., & Della Porta, M. G.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2021-04-10
Volume
39
Issue
11
Pages
1223-1233
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W3127892484
Cited by
222
References
8
FWCI
22.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Classification and Personalized Prognostic Assessment on the Basis of Clinical and Genomic Features in Myelodysplastic Syndromes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.20.01659
The paper
Bersanelli, M., Travaglino, E., Meggendorfer, M., Matteuzzi, T., Sala, C., Mosca, E., Chiereghin, C., Di Nanni, N., Gnocchi, M., Zampini, M., Rossi, M., Maggioni, G., Termanini, A., Angelucci, E., Bernardi, M., Borin, L., Bruno, B., Bonifazi, F., Santini, V., . . . Della Porta, M. G. (2021). Classification and Personalized Prognostic Assessment on the Basis of Clinical and Genomic Features in Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.20.01659

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.