| Literature DB >> 27717354 |
Qian Zhu1, Xiong Zou1, Rui You1, Rou Jiang1, Meng-Xia Zhang1, You-Ping Liu1, Chao-Nan Qian1, Hai-Qiang Mai1, Ming-Huang Hong1, Ling Guo2,3, Ming-Yuan Chen4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extramedullary plasmacytoma (EMP) is a rare malignant disease that lacks a unique clinical staging system to predict the survival of EMP patients and to design individualized treatment. Instead, clinicians have chosen to use the multiple myeloma (MM) staging system.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical stage; Extramedullary plasmacytoma; Prognostic factors
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27717354 PMCID: PMC5055682 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2824-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Anatomic location of the primary tumor in 48 extramedullary plasmacytoma patients. 48 EMP patients were included in this study. The initial location of 48 EMP patients were consisted of several sites, including 30(62 %) of head and neck and 18(38 %) of others
Association between lymph node metastasis and the clinicopathological features of EMP
| Parameter | Number of patients (%) | Lymph node metastasis |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||
| Age, years | ||||
| <50 | 20 (41.7) | 5 (25.0) | 15 (75.0) | 1.000 |
| ≥50 | 28 (58.3) | 8 (28.6) | 20 (71.4) | |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 30 (62.5) | 9 (30.0) | 21 (70.0) | 0.740 |
| Female | 18 (37.5) | 4 (22.2) | 14 (77.8) | |
| Treatment | ||||
| Single | 27 (56.2) | 5 (18.5) | 22 (81.5) | 0.192 |
| Combined | 21 (43.8) | 8 (38.1) | 13 (61.9) | |
| Location | ||||
| Head and neck | 30 (62.5) | 10 (33.3) | 20 (66.7) | 0.317 |
| Other | 18 (37.5) | 3 (16.7) | 15 (83.3) | |
| Size of tumor | ||||
| <5 cm | 24 (50.0) | 6 (25.0) | 18 (75.0) | 1.000 |
| ≥5 cm | 24 (50.0) | 7 (29.2) | 17 (70.8) | |
| Number of tumors | ||||
| Solitary | 42 (87.5) | 10 (23.8) | 32 (76.2) | 0.323 |
| Sporadic | 6 (542.8) | 3 (50.0) | 3 (50.0) | |
Fig. 2Details of treatments. Different colors represent different treatments. Among the 27 patients with single treatment, 8 patients received radiotherapy alone, 12 patients received surgery alone and 7 patients were treated with chemotherapy alone. Moreover, 21 patients underwent a combination treatment (N = number of patients)
Fig. 3Survival curves in 48 Extramedullary Plasmacytoma Patients. Overall survival (a), local relapse free survival (d) and disease-free survival (g) for 48 EMP patients and overall survival (b), local relapse free survival (e) and disease-free survival (h) according to the patients with lymph node metastasis (n = 13) or without lymph node metastasis (n = 25). Overall survival (c), local relapse free survival (f) and disease-free survival (i) between EMP patients with a tumor equal to or more than 5 cm (n = 24) or less than 5 cm (n = 24)
Univariate analysis of patient characteristics for overall survival, disease free survival and local control among the 48 extramedullary plasmacytoma patients
| Variable | Overall survival | Disease free survival | Local control | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Regression coefficient (SE) |
| Regression coefficient (SE) |
| Regression coefficient (SE) | |
| Gender (Male vs Female) | 0.942 | 0.950 (0.695) | 0.645 | 0.781 (0.535) | 0.911 | 0.873 (1.225) |
| Age, years (<50 vs ≧ 50) | 0.296 | 2.058 (0.691) | 0.690 | 1.218 (0.495) | 0.543 | 0.474 (1.228) |
| Lymph node (Without vs With) | 0.005 | 11.767 (0.882) | 0.014 | 5.438 (0.691) | 0.483 | 2.698 (1.415) |
| Size of primary tumor (<5 cm vs ≧ 5 cm) | 0.012 | 14.646 (1.071) | 0.002 | 7.363 (0.646) | 0.704 | 0.626 (1.232) |
| Number of primary tumors (Solitary vs Sporadic) | 0.816 | 0.782 (1.056) | 0.632 | 1.360 (0.641) | 0.424 | 2.759 (1.270) |
| Treatment (Single vs Combined) | 0.432 | 1.657 (0.643) | 0.158 | 2.008 (0.494) | 0.418 | 2.706 (1.230) |
| Anatomic location (HN vs Other) | 0.095 | 2.981 (0.654) | 0.485 | 1.413 (0.495) | 0.979 | 1.033 (1.229) |
Abbreviation: HN head and neck
Prognostic factors of overall survival, disease free survival and local control among the 48 extramedullary plasmacytoma patients
| Variable | Overall survival | Disease free survival | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Relative risk | 95 % CI |
| Relative risk | 95 % CI | |
| I | ||||||
| Gender (Male vs Female) | 0.382 | 2.287 | 0.358–14.613 | 0.940 | 0.953 | 0.276–3.297 |
| Age, years (<50 vs ≧ 50) | 0.375 | 2.282 | 0.369–14.112 | 0.752 | 1.216 | 0.362–4.085 |
| Lymph node metastasis (Without vs With) | 0.019 | 10.335 | 1.463–72.986 | 0.048 | 4.279 | 1.014–18.052 |
| Size of primary tumor (<5 cm vs ≧5 cm) | 0.026 | 18.612 | 1.416–244.713 | 0.004 | 7.496 | 1.903–29.534 |
| Number of primary tumors (Solitary vs Sporadic) | 0.480 | 2.223 | 0.242–20.455 | 0.723 | 0.770 | 0.182–5.074 |
| Treatment (Single vs Combined) | 0.650 | 0.728 | 0.185–2.872 | 0.910 | 0.940 | 0.321–2.754 |
| Anatomic Location (HN vs Others) | 0.306 | 2.096 | 0.508–8.647 | 0.988 | 1.008 | 0.356–2.856 |
| II | ||||||
| Gender (Male vs Female) | 0.378 | 2.276 | 0.364–14.230 | 0.990 | 1.008 | 0. 300–3.388 |
| Age, years (<50 vs ≧ 50) | 0.411 | 2. 049 | 0.371–11.311 | 0.807 | 1.159 | 0.354–3.799 |
| Clinical stage (I vs II vs III) | 0.001 | 13.030 | 2.812–60.382 | <0.001 | 5. 795 | 2.245–14.958 |
| Number of primary tumors (Solitary vs Sporadic) | 0.472 | 2.248 | 0.247–20.461 | 0.746 | 0.791 | 0.191–3.272 |
| Treatment (Single vs Combined) | 0.680 | 0.680 | 0.190–2.957 | 0.982 | 0.988 | 0.342–2.851 |
| Anatomic location (HN vs Others) | 0.291 | 2.291 | 0.521–8.842 | 0.951 | 1.033 | 0.365–2.924 |
Abbreviation: HN head and neck
Fig. 4Comparison of survival according to the new clinical staging system in Extramedullary Plasmacytoma patients. Present study analyzed the overall survival (a), disease-free survival (b) and local control (c) between different clinical stages. The small vertical tick marks of “Obs” represented the observed number of events patients. “Number of patients at risk” represented number of patient possible happened events in the follow-up time
Fig. 5Comparisons of the sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of overall survival. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves was used to compare the sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of overall survival between the multiple myeloma staging system and new staging model
Fig. 6Survival curves of different treatments in EMP patients with late stage. According to the new staging model, 30 EMP patients were classified into late stage (Stage II–III). Patient in this stage treated with different treatment had different overall survival and disease free survival. “ST” represented single treatment and “CT” represented combined treatment