PURPOSE: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and multiple myeloma (MM) comprise heterogeneous disorders with incompletely understood molecular defects and variable clinical features. We performed gene expression profiling (GEP) with microarray data to better dissect the molecular phenotypes, sensitivity to particular chemotherapeutic agents, and prognoses of these diseases. METHODS: Using gene expression and clinical data from 877 patients ranging from normal plasma cells (NPC) to relapsed MM (RMM), we applied gene expression signatures reflecting deregulation of oncogenic pathways and tumor microenvironment to highlight molecular changes that occur as NPCs transition to MM, create a high-risk MGUS gene signature, and subgroup International Staging System (ISS) stages into more prognostically accurate clusters of patients. Lastly, we used gene signatures to predict sensitivity to conventional cytotoxic chemotherapies among identified clusters of patients. RESULTS: Myc upregulation and increasing chromosomal instability (CIN) characterized the evolution from NPC to RMM (P < .0001 for both). Studies of MGUS revealed that some samples shared biologic features with RMM, which comprised the basis for a high-risk MGUS signature. Regarding MM, we subclassified ISS stages into clusters based on shared features of tumor biology. These clusters differentiated themselves based on predictions for prognosis and chemotherapy sensitivity (eg, in ISS stage I, one cluster was characterized by increased CIN, cyclophosphamide resistance, and a poor prognosis). CONCLUSION: GEP provides insight into the molecular defects underlying plasma cell dyscrasias that may explain their clinical heterogeneity. GEP also may also refine current prognostic and therapeutic models for MGUS and MM.
PURPOSE:Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and multiple myeloma (MM) comprise heterogeneous disorders with incompletely understood molecular defects and variable clinical features. We performed gene expression profiling (GEP) with microarray data to better dissect the molecular phenotypes, sensitivity to particular chemotherapeutic agents, and prognoses of these diseases. METHODS: Using gene expression and clinical data from 877 patients ranging from normal plasma cells (NPC) to relapsed MM (RMM), we applied gene expression signatures reflecting deregulation of oncogenic pathways and tumor microenvironment to highlight molecular changes that occur as NPCs transition to MM, create a high-risk MGUS gene signature, and subgroup International Staging System (ISS) stages into more prognostically accurate clusters of patients. Lastly, we used gene signatures to predict sensitivity to conventional cytotoxic chemotherapies among identified clusters of patients. RESULTS: Myc upregulation and increasing chromosomal instability (CIN) characterized the evolution from NPC to RMM (P < .0001 for both). Studies of MGUS revealed that some samples shared biologic features with RMM, which comprised the basis for a high-risk MGUS signature. Regarding MM, we subclassified ISS stages into clusters based on shared features of tumor biology. These clusters differentiated themselves based on predictions for prognosis and chemotherapy sensitivity (eg, in ISS stage I, one cluster was characterized by increased CIN, cyclophosphamide resistance, and a poor prognosis). CONCLUSION: GEP provides insight into the molecular defects underlying plasma cell dyscrasias that may explain their clinical heterogeneity. GEP also may also refine current prognostic and therapeutic models for MGUS and MM.
Authors: Anil Potti; Sayan Mukherjee; Rebecca Petersen; Holly K Dressman; Andrea Bild; Jason Koontz; Robert Kratzke; Mark A Watson; Michael Kelley; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Mike West; David H Harpole; Joseph R Nevins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F Merico; L Bergui; M G Gregoretti; P Ghia; G Aimo; I J Lindley; F Caligaris-Cappio Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Philip R Greipp; Jesus San Miguel; Brian G M Durie; John J Crowley; Bart Barlogie; Joan Bladé; Mario Boccadoro; J Anthony Child; Herve Avet-Loiseau; Jean-Luc Harousseau; Robert A Kyle; Juan J Lahuerta; Heinz Ludwig; Gareth Morgan; Raymond Powles; Kazuyuki Shimizu; Chaim Shustik; Pieter Sonneveld; Patrizia Tosi; Ingemar Turesson; Jan Westin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Howard Y Chang; Dimitry S A Nuyten; Julie B Sneddon; Trevor Hastie; Robert Tibshirani; Therese Sørlie; Hongyue Dai; Yudong D He; Laura J van't Veer; Harry Bartelink; Matt van de Rijn; Patrick O Brown; Marc J van de Vijver Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Howard Y Chang; Julie B Sneddon; Ash A Alizadeh; Ruchira Sood; Rob B West; Kelli Montgomery; Jen-Tsan Chi; Matt van de Rijn; David Botstein; Patrick O Brown Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2004-01-13 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Matthew Ho Zhi Guang; Amanda McCann; Giada Bianchi; Li Zhang; Paul Dowling; Despina Bazou; Peter O'Gorman; Kenneth C Anderson Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2017-06-13
Authors: Yun Xiang; Elizabeth R Remily-Wood; Vasco Oliveira; Danielle Yarde; Lili He; Jin Q Cheng; Linda Mathews; Kelly Boucher; Christopher Cubitt; Lia Perez; Ted J Gauthier; Steven A Eschrich; Kenneth H Shain; William S Dalton; Lori Hazlehurst; John M Koomen Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Claudio Tripodo; Giorgia Gri; Pier Paolo Piccaluga; Barbara Frossi; Carla Guarnotta; Silvia Piconese; Giovanni Franco; Valeria Vetri; Carlo Ennio Pucillo; Ada Maria Florena; Mario Paolo Colombo; Stefano Aldo Pileri Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: E Fountzilas; K Markou; K Vlachtsis; A Nikolaou; P Arapantoni-Dadioti; E Ntoula; G Tassopoulos; M Bobos; P Konstantinopoulos; G Fountzilas; D Spentzos Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 32.976