Table 4. Theme 4 consensus... | American Society of Hematology

Table 4.

Theme 4 consensus recommendations

Defining the most appropriate risk stratification model for MF in the LATAM region	Strength of recommendation,∗ median score (mean score)	Level of consensus†
Q11. Which risk stratification strategies are most suitable for guiding treatment decisions in regions with: Restricted access to full molecular testing? Unrestricted access to full molecular testing? Is there a specific patient subgroup that might benefit most from NGS for risk assessment and treatment guidance? Consensus statement IPSS, DIPSS, and DIPSS Plus are suitable for guiding treatment decisions. Prognostic models incorporating NGS (eg, MIPSS70+ version 2.0 and GIPSS) can refine prognosis in patients with MF and should be used, if available, when more precise prognostication is required. Transplant-age patients being evaluated for allo-HSCT candidacy, and patients for whom confirmation of clonality for diagnosis is required, benefit most from NGS assessment.	9 (8.88)	n/N = 25/25 (100%)
Q12. Which risk stratification model should be used to determine the risks associated with transplantation at the time of transplant referral? Consensus statement To determine the risks associated with transplantation, transplant-specific prognostic indices can be used (eg, HCT-CI, EBMT risk score, and DRI). Furthermore, MTSS is a comprehensive clinical and molecular scoring system devised specifically for patients with MF undergoing transplant and can be used if NGS panels are available.	9 (8.88)	n/N = 24/24 (100%)
Q13. How often should risk stratification be repeated following the initiation of therapy? Consensus statement Following the initiation of therapy, risk assessment should be performed at each visit using prognostic scores such as DIPSS. Models that include NGS/cytogenetic data (eg, DIPSS Plus, MIPSS, and MIPSS70+ version 2.0) may be considered if a patient’s condition worsens or progresses.	9 (8.64)	n/N = 24/25 (96%)

Defining the most appropriate risk stratification model for MF in the LATAM region	Strength of recommendation,∗ median score (mean score)	Level of consensus†
Q11. Which risk stratification strategies are most suitable for guiding treatment decisions in regions with: Restricted access to full molecular testing? Unrestricted access to full molecular testing? Is there a specific patient subgroup that might benefit most from NGS for risk assessment and treatment guidance? Consensus statement IPSS, DIPSS, and DIPSS Plus are suitable for guiding treatment decisions. Prognostic models incorporating NGS (eg, MIPSS70+ version 2.0 and GIPSS) can refine prognosis in patients with MF and should be used, if available, when more precise prognostication is required. Transplant-age patients being evaluated for allo-HSCT candidacy, and patients for whom confirmation of clonality for diagnosis is required, benefit most from NGS assessment.	9 (8.88)	n/N = 25/25 (100%)
Q12. Which risk stratification model should be used to determine the risks associated with transplantation at the time of transplant referral? Consensus statement To determine the risks associated with transplantation, transplant-specific prognostic indices can be used (eg, HCT-CI, EBMT risk score, and DRI). Furthermore, MTSS is a comprehensive clinical and molecular scoring system devised specifically for patients with MF undergoing transplant and can be used if NGS panels are available.	9 (8.88)	n/N = 24/24 (100%)
Q13. How often should risk stratification be repeated following the initiation of therapy? Consensus statement Following the initiation of therapy, risk assessment should be performed at each visit using prognostic scores such as DIPSS. Models that include NGS/cytogenetic data (eg, DIPSS Plus, MIPSS, and MIPSS70+ version 2.0) may be considered if a patient’s condition worsens or progresses.	9 (8.64)	n/N = 24/25 (96%)

GIPSS, Genetically Inspired Prognostic Scoring System.

∗

Median score on a 1 to 9 scale (mean score in parentheses).

†

Percentage of votes with 7 to 9 on a 9-point scale. Participants were provided with the voting option “Not Applicable” for recommendations outside their area expertise.

View Large

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only