Background: The Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-M) has improved the prediction of clinical outcomes for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Scoring System for MDS (AIPSS-MDS), based on classical clinical parameters, has outperformed the IPSS, revised version (IPSS-R). For the first time, we validated the IPSS-M and other molecular prognostic models and compared them with the established IPSS-R and AIPSS-MDS models using data from South American patients. Methods: Molecular and clinical data from 145 patients with MDS and 37 patients with MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Prognostic power evaluation revealed that the IPSS-M (Harrell’s concordance [C]-index: 0.75, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.68) predicted overall survival better than the European MDS (EuroMDS; C-index: 0.72, AUC: 0.68) and Munich Leukemia Laboratory (MLL) (C-index: 0.70, AUC: 0.64) models. The IPSS-M prognostic discrimination was similar to that of the AIPSS-MDS model (C-index: 0.74, AUC:0.66) and outperformed the IPSS-R model (C-index: 0.70, AUC: 0.61). Considering simplified low- and high-risk groups for clinical management, after restratifying from IPSS-R (57% and 32%, respectively, hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8; P = 0.002) to IPSS-M, 12.6% of patients were upstaged, and 5% were downstaged (HR: 2.9; P = 0.001). The AIPSS-MDS recategorized 51% of the low-risk cohort as high-risk, with no patients being downstaged (HR: 5.6;P < 0.001), consistent with most patients requiring disease-modifying therapy. Conclusions The IPSS-M and AIPSS-MDS models provide more accurate survival prognoses than the IPSS-R, EuroMDS, and MLL models. The AIPSS-MDS model is a valid option for assessing risks for all patients with MDS, especially in resource-limited centers where molecular testing is not currently a standard clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Revolutions have occurred over the last 3 decades in the management of patients with colorectal cancer. Most advances were in rectal cancer surgery, especially after the introduction of the total mesorectal excision (TME) by Heald. However, no parallel advances regarding colon cancer surgeries have occurred. In 2009, Hohenberger introduced a new concept trying to translate the survival advantages of TME to patients with colon cancer. This relatively new concept of a complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) in the management of patients with colon cancer represents an evolution in operative technique. We performed a comparative study between CME with CVL and conventional surgery for patients with colon cancer at Italian and Egyptian cancer centers, considering surgical quality and clinical outcome. METHODS: Seventy-nine Egyptian patients underwent conventional surgery (non-CME group) while 52 Italian patients underwent CME with sharp dissection between the embryological planes and CVL of the supplying vessels (CME group). RESULTS: Significantly better results were observed in terms of lymph node yield (CME group: 22.5 vs. non-CME group: 12; P < 0.0001) and lymph node ratio (CME group: 0.03 vs. non-CME group: 0.22; P < 0.0001). Regarding surgical morbidity, no significant difference was noted (CME group: 2 vs. non-CME group: 5; P < 0.702). CONCLUSION: CME appears to be a safe procedure when performed by experienced hands through proper embryological planes. It also provides a superior specimen, with a higher lymph node yield, which consequently affects the lymph node ratio. Eventually, CME with CVL should be increasingly adopted and studied more deeply.
Colon* ; Colonic Neoplasms* ; Colorectal Neoplasms ; Hand ; Humans ; Ligation* ; Lymph Nodes ; Mesocolon ; Rectal Neoplasms