| Literature DB >> 29147298 |
Baldeep Wirk1, Charles H Bush2, Wei Hou3, Leslie Pettiford1, Jan S Moreb1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM), a plasma cell malignancy, is the most common cancer to involve the skeleton. Skeletal related events such as pathologic fractures and lytic bone lesions have been associated with poor prognosis. Whole body multidetector computed tomography (WBCT) has been shown to be the most sensitive imaging modality in detecting small osteolytic lesions (< 5 mm) in the spine. The significance of lytic lesions detected only by CT is unknown as is their impact on overall survival of MM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of lytic bone lesions seen only by WBCT on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in MM patients after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT).Entities:
Keywords: Bone disease; Multiple myeloma; Whole-body CT
Year: 2012 PMID: 29147298 PMCID: PMC5649837 DOI: 10.4021/wjon551w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Oncol ISSN: 1920-4531
Patient and Disease Characteristics
| Characteristics | Group 1 (n = 41) | Group 2 (n = 31) |
|---|---|---|
| Male/female | 22/19 | 17/14 |
| Age, median (range) years | 58 (25 - 75) | 59 (43 - 75) |
| Durie-Salmon/ ISS | ||
| I A/I | 2/19 | 3/11 |
| II A/I | 12/11 | 9/11 |
| III A/IIIB/III | 23/4/5 | 13/6/5 |
| B2M, mg/L, median (range) | 2.27 (0.84 - 14.1) | 2.6 (1.45 - 69.6) |
| Median follow-up (range), months | 36 (6 - 84) | 31 (11 - 73) |
| Lines of therapy before HCT | ||
| 1 | 28 | 20 |
| 2 | 9 | 7 |
| 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Conditioning for first autologous HCT | ||
| Melphalan | 32 | 18 |
| Busulfan/cyclophosphamide +/- etoposide | 9 | 13 |
| Cytogenetics/FISH | ||
| Normal | 25 | 24 |
| Complex/hyperdiploid and del 13 by cytogenetics | 4 | 1 |
| Hyperdiploid without deletions | 6 | 3 |
| FISH + chromosomes 13,14, or 17 | 3 | 3 |
| Del Y | 2 | 1 |
| Time to first auto HCT: median (range) months | 7 (3 - 60) | 7 (3 - 39) |
| Tandem autologous/autologous HCT | 5 | 4 |
| Tandem autologous/allogeneic HCT | 5 | 6 |
| Salvage autologous/autologous HCT | 4 | 1 |
| Salvage autologous/allogeneic HCT | 6 | 2 |
| Maintenance lenalidomide | 4 | 1 |
| Maintenance thalidomide/interferon | 5 | 6 |
Abbreviations: HCT: hematopoietic cell transplant; FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridization; ISS: international staging system; B2M: beta 2 microglobulin; WBCT: whole body computerized tomography; CSS: conventional skeletal survey; Group 1: Patients who had more myelomatous bone disease detected on WBCT than CSS; Group 2: Patients without any differences between CSS and WBCT in the detection of myelomatous bone disease.
Figure 1Rib, sternal, and vertebral body myelomatous lesions seen by WBCT (arrows) (b, c) but not conventional skeletal radiography (a).
Figure 2Incidental finding of a non-cystic, exophytic left renal mass in a patient with multiple myeloma (arrow). This mass was later found to be a renal cell carcinoma.
Patient and Disease Characteristics of Group 5 (Negative Conventional Skeletal Survey) Compared to all Other Groups
| Characteristic | Group 5 (n = 14) | All Other Patients (n = 58) |
|---|---|---|
| Male/female | 5/9 | 34/24 |
| Age, median (range) years | 59 (47 - 75) | 56 (35 - 75) |
| Durie-Salmon stage | ||
| I A | 1 | 4 |
| II A | 7 | 14 |
| III A/IIIB | 3/3 | 33/7 |
| International staging system | ||
| I | 3 | 26 |
| II | 6 | 16 |
| III | 3 | 7 |
| missing | 2 | 9 |
| Lines of therapy before HCT | ||
| 1 | 10 | 38 |
| 2 | 3 | 13 |
| 3 | 1 | 7 |
| Cytogenetics/FISH | ||
| Normal | 11 | 38 |
| Complex/hyperdiploid and del 13 by cytogenetics | 0 | 5 |
| Hyperdiploid without deletions | 1 | 8 |
| FISH + chromosomes 13,14, or 17 | 2 | 4 |
| Del Y | 0 | 3 |
| Time to first autologous HCT: median (range) months | 6 (4 - 24) | 7 (3 - 60) |
| Tandem autologous/autologous HCT | 2 | 7 |
| Tandem autologous/allogeneic HCT | 5 | 6 |
| Salvage autologous/autologous HCT | 0 | 5 |
| Salvage autologous/allogeneic HCT | 0 | 8 |
| Maintenance lenalidomide | 0 | 5 |
| Maintenance thalidomide/interferon | 2 | 9 |
Abbreviations: HCT: hematopoietic cell transplant; FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridization; ISS: international staging system.
Risk Factor Analysis for Progression Free Survival
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | 95% CI | P value | Hazard ratio | 95% CI | P value | |
| Disease stage DS | ||||||
| IIA vs IA | 0.884 | 0.292 - 2.675 | 0.8274 | 1.166 | 0.342 - 3.972 | 0.8058 |
| IIIA vs IA | 1.337 | 0.465 - 3.845 | 0.2898 | 1.722 | 0.575 - 5.157 | 0.3311 |
| IIIB vs IA | 1.439 | 0.420 - 4.930 | 0.3350 | 4.219 | 0.994 - 17.902 | 0.0509 |
| Disease stage ISS | ||||||
| II vs I | 1.467 | 0.800 - 2.692 | 0.2156 | 1.41 | 0.699 - 2.845 | 0.3376 |
| III vs I | 0.742 | 0.304 - 1.808 | 0.5110 | 0.533 | 0.189 - 1.508 | 0.2358 |
| Cytogenetics/FISH | ||||||
| 3 vs 1 | 1.178 | 0.496 - 2.797 | 0.7107 | 0.997 | 0.391 - 2.44 | 0.9598 |
| 2 vs 1 | 1.750 | 0.483 - 6.254 | 0.3894 | 2.411 | 0.638 - 9.109 | 0.1943 |
| Negative vs Positive conventional | 0.522 | 0.253 - 1.077 | 0.0784 | 0.396 | 0.172 - 0.910 | 0.0291 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male vs Female | 0.998 | 0.577 - 1.726 | 0.9944 | 1.088 | 0.603 - 1.963 | 0.7795 |
| Age | 1.005 | 0.977 - 1.033 | 0.7452 | 1.005 | 0.973 - 1.039 | 0.7534 |
Abbreviations: DS: Durie-Salmon stage; ISS: International staging system; FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridization; Definitions of cytogenetics: 1-poor prognosis, complex abnormalities with del 13, 17p, or t(4:14), or any of these abnormalities; 2- Intermediate prognosis, normal chromosomes, Del 13 by FISH only; 3- Good prognosis, hyperdiploidy, t(11,14).
Risk Factor Analysis for Overall Survival
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | 95% CI | P value | Hazard ratio | 95% CI | P value | |
| Disease stage DS | ||||||
| IIA vs IA | 0.754 | 0.083 - 6.876 | 0.8026 | 1.27 | 0.111 - 14.485 | 0.8472 |
| IIIA vs IA | 2.116 | 0.275 - 16.264 | 0.4715 | 4.57 | 0.534 - 39.147 | 0.1655 |
| IIIB vs IA | 3.839 | 0.461 - 31.947 | 0.2133 | 11.972 | 1.196 - 116.23 | 0.0346 |
| Disease stage ISS | ||||||
| II vs I | 7.70 | 2.765 - 21.837 | 0.0001 | 7.234 | 2.179 - 24.015 | 0.0012 |
| III vs I | 4.579 | 1.321 - 15.872 | 0.0164 | 3.426 | 0.809 - 14.516 | 0.0946 |
| Cytogenetics/FISH | ||||||
| 3 vs 1 | 1.044 | 0.308 - 3.539 | 0.9452 | 0.26 | 0.058 - 1.154 | 0.0763 |
| 2 vs 1 | 1.089 | 0.181 - 6.54 | 0.9257 | 0.232 | 0.031 - 1.724 | 0.1532 |
| Negative vs Positive conventional skeletal survey | 0.136 | 0.018 - 1.01 | 0.051 | 0.061 | 0.007 - 0.554 | 0.013 |
| Gender Male vs Female | 0.803 | 0.358 - 1.798 | 0.593 | 0.875 | 0.37 - 2.069 | 0.761 |
| Age | 1.03 | 0.987 - 1.074 | 0.1809 | 1.047 | 0.987 - 1.111 | 0.126 |
Abbreviations: DS: Durie-Salmon stage; ISS: International staging system; FISH: fluorescence in situ hybridization; Definitions of cytogenetics: 1- poor prognosis,complex abnormalities with del 13, 17p, or t(4:14), or any of these abnormalities; 2- Intermediate prognosis, normal chromosomes, Del 13 by FISH only; 3- good prognosis, hyperdiploidy, t(11,14).
Comparison of Survival Curves Using the Logrank Test
| Groups of patients | Median PFS (months) | Median OS (months) | Hazard ratio | 95% confidence interval | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groups 1 vs. 2 | 17 vs. 27 | 84 vs. not yet reached | PFS: 0.627 | PFS: 0.36 - 1.1 | PFS: 0.09 |
| Groups 3 vs. 4 | 28 vs. 36.5 | Not yet reached vs. 60 | PFS: 1.544 | PFS: 0.41 - 6.66 | PFS: 0.487 |
| Groups 5 vs. all others | 32 vs. 17 | Not yet reached vs. 84 | PFS: 0.47 | PFS: 0.28 - 0.93 | PFS: 0.0292 |
Abbreviations: Group 1: Patients who had more myelomatous bone disease detected on WBCT than CSS; Group 2: Patients without any differences between CSS and WBCT in the detection of myelomatous bone disease; Group 3: Patients without any myelomatous bone disease detected by either modality; Group 4: Patients with myelomatous bone lesions detected by WBCT but not by CSS; Group 5: patients in groups 3 and 4 together.
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves for the different groups of patients. P values are displayed within the figure for each comparison. Group 1: Patients who had more myelomatous bone disease detected on WBCT than CSS. Group 2: Patients without any differences between CSS and WBCT in the detection of myelomatous bone diseaseGroup 3: Patients without any myelomatous bone disease detected by either modality. Group 4: Patients with myelomatous bone lesions detected by WBCT but not by CSS.Group 5: patients in groups 3 and 4 together.