PURPOSE: Chromosomal aberrations are a hallmark of multiple myeloma but their global prognostic impact is largely unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a genome-wide analysis of malignant plasma cells from 192 newly diagnosed patients with myeloma using high-density, single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays to identify genetic lesions associated with prognosis. RESULTS: Our analyses revealed deletions and amplifications in 98% of patients. Amplifications in 1q and deletions in 1p, 12p, 14q, 16q, and 22q were the most frequent lesions associated with adverse prognosis, whereas recurrent amplifications of chromosomes 5, 9, 11, 15, and 19 conferred a favorable prognosis. Multivariate analysis retained three independent lesions: amp(1q23.3), amp(5q31.3), and del(12p13.31). When adjusted to the established prognostic variables (ie, t(4;14), del(17p), and serum beta(2)-microglobulin [Sbeta(2)M]), del(12p13.31) remained the most powerful independent adverse marker (P < .0001; hazard ratio [HR], 3.17) followed by Sbeta(2)M (P < .0001; HR, 2.78) and the favorable marker amp(5q31.3) (P = .0005; HR, 0.37). Patients with amp(5q31.3) alone and low Sbeta(2)M had an excellent prognosis (5-year overall survival, 87%); conversely, patients with del(12p13.31) alone or amp(5q31.3) and del(12p13.31) and high Sbeta(2)M had a very poor outcome (5-year overall survival, 20%). This prognostic model was validated in an independent validation cohort of 273 patients with myeloma. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate the power and accessibility of molecular karyotyping to predict outcome in myeloma. In addition, integration of expression of genes residing in the lesions of interest revealed putative features of the disease driving short survival.
PURPOSE: Chromosomal aberrations are a hallmark of multiple myeloma but their global prognostic impact is largely unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a genome-wide analysis of malignant plasma cells from 192 newly diagnosed patients with myeloma using high-density, single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays to identify genetic lesions associated with prognosis. RESULTS: Our analyses revealed deletions and amplifications in 98% of patients. Amplifications in 1q and deletions in 1p, 12p, 14q, 16q, and 22q were the most frequent lesions associated with adverse prognosis, whereas recurrent amplifications of chromosomes 5, 9, 11, 15, and 19 conferred a favorable prognosis. Multivariate analysis retained three independent lesions: amp(1q23.3), amp(5q31.3), and del(12p13.31). When adjusted to the established prognostic variables (ie, t(4;14), del(17p), and serum beta(2)-microglobulin [Sbeta(2)M]), del(12p13.31) remained the most powerful independent adverse marker (P < .0001; hazard ratio [HR], 3.17) followed by Sbeta(2)M (P < .0001; HR, 2.78) and the favorable marker amp(5q31.3) (P = .0005; HR, 0.37). Patients with amp(5q31.3) alone and low Sbeta(2)M had an excellent prognosis (5-year overall survival, 87%); conversely, patients with del(12p13.31) alone or amp(5q31.3) and del(12p13.31) and high Sbeta(2)M had a very poor outcome (5-year overall survival, 20%). This prognostic model was validated in an independent validation cohort of 273 patients with myeloma. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate the power and accessibility of molecular karyotyping to predict outcome in myeloma. In addition, integration of expression of genes residing in the lesions of interest revealed putative features of the disease driving short survival.
Authors: Fenghuang Zhan; Johanna Hardin; Bob Kordsmeier; Klaus Bumm; Mingzhong Zheng; Erming Tian; Ralph Sanderson; Yang Yang; Carla Wilson; Maurizio Zangari; Elias Anaissie; Christopher Morris; Firas Muwalla; Frits van Rhee; Athanasios Fassas; John Crowley; Guido Tricot; Bart Barlogie; John Shaughnessy Journal: Blood Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: N Zojer; R Königsberg; J Ackermann; E Fritz; S Dallinger; E Krömer; H Kaufmann; L Riedl; H Gisslinger; S Schreiber; R Heinz; H Ludwig; H Huber; J Drach Journal: Blood Date: 2000-03-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: T Facon; H Avet-Loiseau; G Guillerm; P Moreau; F Geneviève; M Zandecki; J L Laï; X Leleu; J P Jouet; F Bauters; J L Harousseau; R Bataille; J Y Mary Journal: Blood Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Rafael Fonseca; David Harrington; Martin M Oken; Gordon W Dewald; Richard J Bailey; Scott A Van Wier; Kimberly J Henderson; Emily A Blood; S Vincent Rajkumar; Neil E Kay; Brian Van Ness; Philip R Greipp Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: F Li; L Hu; Y Xu; Z Li; S Yi; Z Gu; C Li; M Hao; K Ru; F Zhan; A Zetterberg; W Yuan; T Cheng; L Qiu Journal: Leukemia Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: H Avet-Loiseau; B G M Durie; M Cavo; M Attal; N Gutierrez; J Haessler; H Goldschmidt; R Hajek; J H Lee; O Sezer; B Barlogie; J Crowley; R Fonseca; N Testoni; F Ross; S V Rajkumar; P Sonneveld; J Lahuerta; P Moreau; G Morgan Journal: Leukemia Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: J R Sawyer; E Tian; J D Shaughnessy; J Epstein; C M Swanson; C Stangeby; C L Hale; L Parr; M Lynn; G Sammartino; J L Lukacs; C Stein; C Bailey; M Zangari; F E Davies; F Van Rhee; B Barlogie; G J Morgan Journal: Leukemia Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Angela Baker; Esteban Braggio; Susanna Jacobus; Sungwon Jung; Dirk Larson; Terry Therneau; Angela Dispenzieri; Scott A Van Wier; Gregory Ahmann; Joan Levy; Louise Perkins; Seungchan Kim; Kimberly Henderson; David Vesole; S Vincent Rajkumar; Diane F Jelinek; John Carpten; Rafael Fonseca Journal: Blood Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 22.113