Top

Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion

Published in:

01-07-2020 | Multiple Myeloma | Review Article

Risk Stratification in Multiple Myeloma in Indian Settings

Authors: Rajan Kapoor, Rajiv Kumar, A. P. Dubey

Published in: Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion | Issue 3/2020

Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) constitutes 10% of all hematological malignancies. The last one decade has seen a phenomenal progress in the therapeutic options available for the management. Although it still remains incurable, with the advent of newer therapies, the median survival in many risk groups is now around 10 years. Conventional karyotyping of bone marrow samples has a positivity rate of 20–30% at diagnosis in patients of Multiple Myeloma. However, array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH) has revealed that almost all MM patients have cytogenetic abnormalities which may affect the pathophysiology, selection of therapy and outcomes of the disease. The progress in the field of exploring the genetic landscape of multiple myeloma with multiple tools like Fluorescent in-situ hybridization, aCGH, Next Generation Sequencing, Flow cytometry, etc., combined with the traditional risk stratification markers like albumin, β2 microglobulin and LDH, is gradually leading towards a risk-adapted therapy. The recent R-ISS risk stratification has combined these two group of information to validate a prognostic score which is an improvement over the past tools like DSS and ISS. In view of the plethora of information available on the multitude of cytogenetic markers there is a tendency to evaluate for all of them at diagnosis, especially in research centers. This leads to a significant increase in the cost of therapy of Multiple Myeloma in day-to-day clinical practice and an increased out-of-pocket spending to the patient, especially in resource-limited settings like India. Also, there is a variable approach to pre-therapy cytogenetic evaluation and risk stratification at different Hematology centres in the country, often dictated by financial constraints and availability of specialized tests. This review discusses the risk stratification markers and tools available in MM in 2019 and how it can be adapted in the resource constraint settings so as to derive the maximum prognostic information from a minimal prognostic panel, as well as lead to standardization of the prognostic protocols in resource limited settings across various Hematology centres in India.

Fonseca R (2003) Many and multiple myeloma(s). Leukemia 17:1943–1944PubMed

Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Buadi FK et al (2008) Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood 111:2516–2520PubMedPubMedCentral

Rajkumar SV (2011) Treatment of multiple myeloma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 8:479–491PubMedPubMedCentral

Gadhia P, Vaniawala S (2014) Cytogenetics and FISH studies in multiple myeloma—a retrospective study from Western India. Am J Curr Biol 2:1–71

Kumar L, Boya RR, Pai R, Harish P, Mookerjee A, Sainath B, Patekar MB, Sahoo RK, Malik PS, Sharma OD, Gupta R (2016) Autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: long term results. Natl Med J India 29(4):192–199PubMed

Zhan F, Huang Y, Colla S, Stewart JP, Hanamura I, Gupta S et al (2006) The molecular classification of multiple myeloma. Blood 108:2020–2028PubMedPubMedCentral

Ludwig H, Durie BG, Bolejack V, Turesson I, Kyle RA, Blade J et al (2008) Myeloma in patients younger than age 50 years presents with more favorable features and shows better survival: an analysis of 10 549 patients from the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood 111:4039–4047PubMedPubMedCentral

Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Campion L, Caillot D, Hulin C, Marit G et al (2012) Long-term analysis of the IFM 99 trials for myeloma: cytogenetic abnormalities [t(4;14), del(17p), 1q gains] play a major role in defining long-term survival. J Clin Oncol 30:1949–1952PubMed

Fonseca R, Blood E, Rue M, Harrington D, Oken MM, Kyle RA et al (2003) Clinical and biologic implications of recurrent genomic aberrations in myeloma. Blood 101:4569–4575PubMed

10.

Munshi NC, Anderson KC, Bergsagel PL, Shaughnessy J, Palumbo A, Durie B et al (2011) Consensus recommendations for risk stratification in multiple myeloma: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2. Blood 117:4696–4700PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Keats JJ, Reiman T, Maxwell CA, Taylor BJ, Larratt LM, Mant MJ et al (2003) In multiple myeloma, t(4;14) (p16;q32) is an adverse prognostic factor irrespective of FGFR3 expression. Blood 101:1520–1529PubMed

12.

Jagannath S, Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, Irwin D, Stadtmauer EA et al (2007) Bortezomib appears to overcome the poor prognosis conferred by chromosome 13 deletion in phase 2 and 3 trials. Leukemia 21:151–157PubMed

13.

San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, Dimopoulos MA, Shpilberg O, Kropff M et al (2008) Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 359:906–917PubMed

14.

Chng WJ, Dispenzeiri A, Chim CS, Fonesca R, Goldschmidt H, Lentzsch H (2014) Review of IMWG consensus on risk stratification in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 28:269–277PubMed

15.

Binder M, Rajkumar SV, Ketterling RP et al (2017) Prognostic implications of abnormalities of chromosome 13 and the presence of multiple cytogenetic high-risk abnormalities in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J 7:e600PubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Walker BA, Mavrommatis K, Wardell CP et al (2019) A high-risk, Double-Hit, group of newly diagnosed myeloma identified by genomic analysis. Leukemia 33:159–170PubMed

17.

Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Lokhorst HM, Goldschmidt H et al (2015) Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from international Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol 33(26):2863–2869PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Hoyer JD, Hanson CA, Fonseca R, Greipp PR, Dewald GW, Kurtin PJ (2000) The (11;14) (q13;q32) translocation in multiple myeloma A morphologic and immunohistochemical study. Am J Clin Pathol 113:831–837PubMed

19.

Garand R, Avet-Loiseau H, Accard F, Moreau P, Harousseau J, Bataille R (2003) t(11;14) and t(4;14) translocations correlated with mature lymphoplasmocytoid and immature morphology, respectively, in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 17:2032–2035PubMed

20.

Avet-Loiseau H, Facon T, Grosbois B, Magrangeas F, Rapp MJ, Harousseau JL et al (2002) Oncogenesis of multiple myeloma: 14q32 and 13q chromosomal abnormalities are not randomly distributed but correlate with natural history, immunological features, and clinical presentation. Blood 99:2185–2191PubMed

21.

Chang H, Sloan S, Li D, Zhuang L, Yi QL, Chen CI et al (2004) The t(4;14) is associated with poor prognosis in myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplant. Br J Haematol 125:64–68PubMed

22.

Chang H, Qi XY, Samiee S, Yi QL, Chen C, Trudel S et al (2005) Genetic risk identifies multiple myeloma patients who do not benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl 36:793–796

23.

Rajan AM, Rajkumar SV (2015) Interpretation of cytogenetic results in multiple myeloma for clinical practice. Blood Cancer J 5:e365PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Fonseca R, Oken MM, Harrington D, Bailey RJ, Van Wier SA, Henderson KJ et al (2001) Deletions of chromosome 13 in multiple myeloma identified by interphase FISH usually denote large deletions of the q arm or monosomy. Leukemia 15:981–986PubMed

25.

Fonseca R, Harrington D, Oken M, Dewald G, Bailey R, Van Wier S et al (2002) Biologic and prognostic significance of interphase FISH detection of chromosome 13 abnormalities (D13) in multiple myeloma: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study. Cancer Res 62:715–720PubMed

26.

Drach J, Ackermann J, Fritz E, Kromer E, Schuster R, Gisslinger H et al (1998) Presence of a p53 gene deletion in patients with multiple myeloma predicts for short survival after conventional-dose chemotherapy. Blood 92:802–809PubMed

27.

Biran N, Malhotra J, Bagiella E et al (2014) Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and chromosome 1 amplification have poor outcomes despite the use of novel triplet regimens. Am J Hematol 89(6):616–620PubMed

28.

Schilling G, Hansen T, Shimoni A, Zabelina T, Perez-Simon JA, Gutierrez NC et al (2008) Impact of genetic abnormalities on survival after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 22:1250–1255PubMed

29.

Hanamura I, Stewart JP, Huang Y, Zhan F, Santra M, Sawyer JR et al (2006) Frequent gain of chromosome band 1q21 in plasma-cell dyscrasias detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization: incidence increases from MGUS to relapsed myeloma and is related to prognosis and disease progression following tandem stem-cell transplantation. Blood 108:1724–1732PubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Shah GL, Landau L, Londono D et al (2017) Gain of chromosome 1q portends worse prognosis in multiple myeloma despite novel agent based induction regimes and autotransplant. Leuk Lymphoma 58:1823–1831PubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Debes-Marun C, Dewald G, Bryant S, Picken E, Santana-Davila S, Gonzalez-Paz N et al (2003) Chromosome abnormalities clustering and its implications for pathogenesis and prognosis in myeloma. Leukemia 17:427–436PubMed

32.

Smadja NV, Fruchart C, Isnard F, Louvet C, Dutel JL, Cheron N et al (1998) Chromosomal analysis in multiple myeloma: cytogenetic evidence of two different diseases. Leukemia 12:960–969PubMed

33.

Ching WJ, Kumar S, Van Wier S et al (2007) Molecular dissection of hyperdiploid multiple myeloma by gene expression profiling. Cancer Res 67:2982–2989

34.

Nowakowski GS, Witzig TE, Dingli D et al (2005) Circulating plasma cells detected by flow cytometry as a predictor of survival in 302 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 106:2276PubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Witzig TE, Gertz MA, Lust JA et al (1996) Peripheral blood monoclonal plasma cells as a predictor of survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 88:1780PubMed

36.

Dingli D, Nowakowski GS, Dispenzieri A et al (2006) Flow cytometric detection of circulating myeloma cells before transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a simple risk stratification system. Blood 107:3384PubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Hari PN, Zhang M-J, Roy V et al (2009) Is the international staging systemsuperior to the Durie Salmon staging system? A comparison in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplant. Leukemia 23(8):1528–1534PubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Rawstron AC, Davies FE, Das Gupta R et al (2002) Flow cytometric disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: the relationship between normal and neoplastic plasma cells predicts outcome after transplantation. Blood 100:3095PubMed

39.

Hallek M, Bergsagel PL, Anderson KC (1998) Multiple myeloma: increasing evidence for a multistep transformation process. Blood 91(1):3–21PubMed

40.

Fonseca R, Bergsagel PL, Drach J, Shaugh Nessy J, Gutierrez N, Stewart AK et al (2009) International Myeloma Working Group molecular classification of multiple myeloma: spotlight review. Leukemia 23(12):2210–2221PubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, Fermand JP, Rajkumar SV, San Miguel J, Chanan-Khan A et al (2011) Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. Blood 117(18):4701–4705PubMed

42.

Rajkumar SV (2011) Multiple myeloma: 2011 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am J Hematol 86(1):57–65PubMed

43.

Pozdnyakova O, Crowley-Larsen P, Zota V, Wang SA, Miron PM (2009) Interphase FISH in plasma cell dyscrasia: increase in abnormality detection with plasma cell enrichment. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 189(2):112–117PubMed

44.

Drach J, Schuster J, Nowotny H et al (1995) Multiple myeloma: high incidence of chromosomal aneuploidy as detected by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cancer Res 55:3854–3859PubMed

45.

Zojer N, Konigsberg R, Ackermann J et al (2000) Deletion of 13q14 remains an independent adverse prognostic variable in multiple myeloma despite its frequent detection by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization. Blood 95:1925–1930PubMed

46.

Gary L, Muddasani R, Orlowski RZ, Abruzzo LV, Qazilbash MH, James You M et al (2013) PC enrichment enhances detection of High-Risk cytogenomic abnormalities by FISH and Improves risk stratification of patients with plasma cell neoplasms. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137(5):625–631

47.

Fonseca R, Bergsagel PL, Drach J, Shaughnessy J et al (2009) International Myeloma Working Group molecular classification of multiple myeloma: spotlight review. Leukemia 23:2210–2221PubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Kaiser MF, Walker BA, Hockley SL, Begum DB, Wardell CP, Gonzalez D, Ross FM, Davies FE, Morgan GJ (2013) A TC classification-based predictor for multiple myeloma using multiplexed real-time quantitative PCR. Leukemia 27(8):1754–1757PubMed

49.

Dispenser A, Kyle RA, Katzmann JA, Therneau TM, Larson D, Benson J et al (2008) Immunoglobulin free light chain ratio is an independent risk factor for progression of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. Blood 111:785–789

50.

Rajkumar SV, Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Clark RJ, Bradwell AR, Melton LJ III et al (2004) Presence of monoclonal free light chains in the serum predicts risk of progression in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Br J Haematol 127:308–310PubMed

51.

Kumar S, Zhang L, Dispenzieri A, Wier VS et al (2010) Relationship between elevated immunoglobulin free light chain and the presence of IgH translocations in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 24:1498–1505PubMedPubMedCentral

52.

van Rhee F, Bolejack V, Hollmig K, Pineda-Roman M, Anaissie E, Epstein J et al (2007) High serum-free light chain levels and their rapid reduction in response to therapy define an aggressive multiple myeloma subtype with poor prognosis. Blood 110:827–832PubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Kyrtsonis MC, Vassilakopoulos TP, Kafasi N, Sachanas S, Tzenou T, Papadogiannis A et al (2007) Prognostic value of serum free light chain ratio at diagnosis in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 137:240–243PubMed

54.

Tan D, Lee JH, Chen W et al (2018) Recent advances in the management of multiple myeloma: clinical impact based on resource-stratification. Consensus statement of the Asian Myeloma Network at the 16th international myeloma workshop. Leuk Lymphoma 59(10):2305–2317PubMed

Title: Risk Stratification in Multiple Myeloma in Indian Settings
Authors: Rajan Kapoor
Rajiv Kumar
A. P. Dubey
Publication date: 01-07-2020
Publisher: Springer India
Keyword: Multiple Myeloma
Published in: Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0971-4502
Electronic ISSN: 0974-0449
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-019-01240-4

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Analysis of Donor Safety in High Yield Plateletpheresis Procedures: An Experience from Tertiary Care Hospital in South India

Hemolysis in Two Newborns Due to Isohemagglutinins Passively Transferred from Maternal Breast Milk

Spontaneus Triplet Birth After Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Treatment

Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia as Presenting Manifestation of Multiple Myeloma

Response to Horse ATG (Thymogam, Bharat Serums and Vaccine, India) and Cyclosporine in Aplastic Anemia: A Single Centre, Retrospective Study of 60 Patients from Southern India

Impact of World Health Organization (WHO) Revised Criteria-2016 on the Diagnosis of Polycythemia Vera

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer