Novel MAGIC composite scores using both clinical symptoms and biomarkers best predict treatment outcomes of acute GVHD

Affiliations
  • 1Division of Hematology/Medical Oncology, The Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
  • 2Department of Hematology and Oncology, Internal Medicine III, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
  • 3Division of Bone Marrow Transplantation, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
  • 4Department of Stem Cell Transplantation, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
  • 5Division of Hematology and Center of Excellence in Translational Hematology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • 6Division of Hematology, Blood and Marrow Transplant Program, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH.
  • 7Department of Hematology, Hemostasis, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
  • 8Division of Oncology, Center for Childhood Cancer Research and Cancer Immunotherapy Program, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
  • 9Department of Pediatrics, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  • 10Department of Medicine and Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  • 11Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
  • 12Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Division, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
  • 13Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
  • 14City of Hope, Duarte, CA.
  • 15Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, Italy.
  • 16Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
  • 17Division of Hematology/Oncology and Columbia Center for Translational Immunology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • 18Division of Hematology/Oncology/BMT, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • 19Department of Pediatrics, Experimental Immunology and Cell Therapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
  • 20Department of Internal Medicine 5, Hematology and Oncology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg and University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
  • 21Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
  • 22Department of Medicine I, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
  • 23Hematopoietic Cell Transplant and Cellular Therapy Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.

Published on:

Abstract

Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grading systems that use only clinical symptoms at treatment initiation such as the Minnesota risk identify standard and high-risk categories but lack a low-risk category suitable to minimize immunosuppressive strategies. We developed a new grading system that includes a low-risk stratum based on clinical symptoms alone and determined whether the incorporation of biomarkers would improve the model’s prognostic accuracy. We randomly divided 1863 patients in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) who were treated for GVHD into training and validation cohorts. Patients in the training cohort were divided into 14 groups based on similarity of clinical symptoms and similar nonrelapse mortality (NRM); we used a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm to create three Manhattan risk groups that produced a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 6-month NRM than the Minnesota risk classification (0.69 vs 0.64, P = .009) in the validation cohort. We integrated serum GVHD biomarker scores with Manhattan risk using patients with available serum samples and again used a CART algorithm to establish 3 MAGIC composite scores that significantly improved prediction of NRM compared to Manhattan risk (AUC, 0.76 vs 0.70, P = .010). Each increase in MAGIC composite score also corresponded to a significant decrease in day 28 treatment response (80% vs 63% vs 30%, P < .001). We conclude that the MAGIC composite score more accurately predicts response to therapy and long-term outcomes than systems based on clinical symptoms alone and may help guide clinical decisions and trial design.