Literature DB >> 23859528

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: a new proposal of workup.

Silvia Mangiacavalli1, Federica Cocito, Lara Pochintesta, Cristiana Pascutto, Virginia Ferretti, Marzia Varettoni, Patrizia Zappasodi, Alessandra Pompa, Benedetta Landini, Mario Cazzola, Alessandro Corso.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic criteria for monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) require quantification of bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) and skeletal survey to discriminate between MGUS and multiple myeloma (MM). By contrast, recent published guidelines suggest that these procedures could be avoided in the presence of serum monoclonal spike (M-spike) of small amount (≤1.5 g/dL). Aim of this study is to better quantify the risk of missing a diagnosis of MM, not performing bone marrow aspirate and skeletal survey in patients with M-spike ≤ 1.5 g/dL asymptomatic for bone pain.
METHODS: We reviewed data of 2282 patients consecutively observed from January 1974 to December 2010 in our single hematology department. We considered eligible for this study 1271 patients with grade <2 NCI bone pain, confirmed to have an MGUS or an MM after extensive standardized diagnostic workup including bone marrow biopsy, skeletal bone survey and laboratory tests.
RESULTS: The risk of finding a BMPC infiltration ≥10% in patients with an M-spike ≤ 1.5 g/dL was very low (7.3%), although significantly different according to IgH isotype (4.7% for IgG vs. 20.5% for IgA). The risk of finding bone lesions with M-spike ≤ 1.5 g/dL was negligible (2.5%), regardless of IgH isotype.
CONCLUSION: In asymptomatic patients with M-spike of small amount (≤1.5 g/dL): (i) BMPC evaluation may be reasonably avoided in patients with IgG M-spike, while should always be part of diagnostic workup in the presence of IgA M-spike and (ii) skeletal survey, less predictive for MM, should not be routinely indicated irrespective of IgH isotype.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diagnostic workup; monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance; myeloma

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23859528     DOI: 10.1111/ejh.12172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Haematol        ISSN: 0902-4441            Impact factor:   2.997


  6 in total

Review 1.  The clinical relevance and management of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and related disorders: recommendations from the European Myeloma Network.

Authors:  Niels W C J van de Donk; Antonio Palumbo; Hans Erik Johnsen; Monika Engelhardt; Francesca Gay; Henrik Gregersen; Roman Hajek; Martina Kleber; Heinz Ludwig; Gareth Morgan; Pellegrino Musto; Torben Plesner; Orhan Sezer; Evangelos Terpos; Anders Waage; Sonja Zweegman; Hermann Einsele; Pieter Sonneveld; Henk M Lokhorst
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 9.941

Review 2.  How I manage monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.

Authors:  Ronald S Go; S Vincent Rajkumar
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 22.113

3.  Long-Term Follow-up of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance.

Authors:  Robert A Kyle; Dirk R Larson; Terry M Therneau; Angela Dispenzieri; Shaji Kumar; James R Cerhan; S Vincent Rajkumar
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Floccinaucinihilipilification: is there a continuing role for the radiographic skeletal survey?

Authors:  Daniel I Rosenthal
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Characterization of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance by calorimetric analysis of blood serum proteome.

Authors:  Francisca Barceló; Joan J Cerdà; Antonio Gutiérrez; Teresa Jimenez-Marco; M Antonia Durán; Andrés Novo; Teresa Ros; Antonia Sampol; José Portugal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  MALDI-TOF analysis of blood serum proteome can predict the presence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.

Authors:  Francisca Barceló; Rosa Gomila; Ivan de Paul; Xavier Gili; Jaume Segura; Albert Pérez-Montaña; Teresa Jimenez-Marco; Antonia Sampol; José Portugal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.