Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

American Society of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 12(38), p. 1312-1321, 2020

DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.01085

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Clinical and Genetic Risk Prediction of Cognitive Impairment After Blood or Marrow Transplantation for Hematologic Malignancy

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

PURPOSE Using a candidate gene approach, we tested the hypothesis that individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and gene-level variants are associated with cognitive impairment in patients with hematologic malignancies treated with blood or marrow transplantation (BMT) and that inclusion of these SNPs improves risk prediction beyond that offered by clinical and demographic characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS In the discovery cohort, BMT recipients underwent a standardized battery of neuropsychological tests pre-BMT and at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years post-BMT. Associations between 68 candidate genes and cognitive impairment were assessed using generalized estimating equation models. Elastic-Net regression was used to build Base (sociodemographic), Clinical, and Combined (Base plus Clinical plus genetic) risk prediction models of post-BMT impairment. An independent nonoverlapping cohort from the BMT Survivor Study with self-report of learning/memory problems (as identified by their health care provider) was used for model replication. RESULTS The discovery cohort included 277 participants (58.5% males; 68.6% non-Hispanic whites; and 46.6% allogeneic BMT recipients). Adjusting for BMT type, age at BMT, sex, race/ethnicity, and cognitive reserve, SNPs in the blood-brain barrier, telomere homeostasis, and DNA repair genes were significantly associated with cognitive impairment. Compared with the Clinical Model, the Combined Model had higher predictive power in both the discovery cohort (mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.93 v 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.83; P = 1.24 × 10−9) and the replication cohort (AUC, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.76 v 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.68; P = .004). CONCLUSION Inclusion of candidate genetic variants enhanced the prediction of risk of post-BMT cognitive impairment beyond that offered by demographic/clinical characteristics and represents a step toward a personalized approach to managing patients at high risk for cognitive impairment after BMT.