Jiangang Mei1, Yongping Zhai2, Hanqing Li1, Feng Li3, Xiaogang Zhou3, Ping Song3, Qian Zhao3, Yaping Yu3, Zhiming An3, Liping Wang3. 1. Laboratory of Haematology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China. 2. Department of Haematology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China. yongpingzhai@163.com. 3. Department of Haematology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiple myeloma is genetically heterogeneous with varied clinical outcomes, primarily due to the coexistence of diverse numerical and structural cytogenetic abnormalities. The prognostic impact of hyperdiploidy in myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics remains controversial in Western studies and is unknown in China. METHODS: We examined the cytogenetic features of hyperdiploidy in 201 Chinese patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using magnetic-activated cell sorting and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization and analyzed the effect of hyperdiploidy on the prognosis of patients with high-risk cytogenetics. RESULTS: Hyperdiploidy was detected in 50.7% (102/201) of the examined patients, and the incidence of hyperdiploidy coexisting with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p13), +1q21 and adverse t(14q32)] was 33.8% (68/201). Survival analysis showed that the median progression-free survival (PFS) and 2-year overall survival (OS) of patients were better for hyperdiploidy than those for non-hyperdiploidy (43 vs. 20 months, P = 0.01; 86.8% vs. 70.5%, P = 0.04) and for standard-risk cytogenetics than those for high-risk cytogenetics (not reached vs. 23 months, P = 0.0001; 87.6% vs. 74.4%, P = 0.01). Strikingly, the high-risk cytogenetics patients with hyperdiploidy showed a better median PFS than those without hyperdiploidy (34 vs. 15 months, P = 0.01); however, compared to standard-risk cytogenetics patients, the median PFS and 2-year OS were poorer (34 months vs. not reached, P = 0.02; 78.8% vs. 87.6%, P = 0.05). The independent predictors of PFS were non-hyperdiploidy, high-risk cytogenetics, and bone marrow plasma cells ≥ 30%, with hazard ratios of 2.01 (95% CI 1.25-3.25), 2.56 (95% CI 1.38-4.74), and 1.81 (95% CI 1.08-3.05), respectively, and those for OS were non-hyperdiploidy and serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 250 U/L, with hazard ratios of 2.53 (95% CI 1.24-5.46) and 3.53 (95% CI 1.50-6.96), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the coexistence of hyperdiploidy may ameliorate the adverse prognosis of multiple myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics. High-risk cytogenetics patients without hyperdiploidy showed the worst prognosis.
PURPOSE:Multiple myeloma is genetically heterogeneous with varied clinical outcomes, primarily due to the coexistence of diverse numerical and structural cytogenetic abnormalities. The prognostic impact of hyperdiploidy in myelomapatients with high-risk cytogenetics remains controversial in Western studies and is unknown in China. METHODS: We examined the cytogenetic features of hyperdiploidy in 201 Chinese patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using magnetic-activated cell sorting and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization and analyzed the effect of hyperdiploidy on the prognosis of patients with high-risk cytogenetics. RESULTS: Hyperdiploidy was detected in 50.7% (102/201) of the examined patients, and the incidence of hyperdiploidy coexisting with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p13), +1q21 and adverse t(14q32)] was 33.8% (68/201). Survival analysis showed that the median progression-free survival (PFS) and 2-year overall survival (OS) of patients were better for hyperdiploidy than those for non-hyperdiploidy (43 vs. 20 months, P = 0.01; 86.8% vs. 70.5%, P = 0.04) and for standard-risk cytogenetics than those for high-risk cytogenetics (not reached vs. 23 months, P = 0.0001; 87.6% vs. 74.4%, P = 0.01). Strikingly, the high-risk cytogenetics patients with hyperdiploidy showed a better median PFS than those without hyperdiploidy (34 vs. 15 months, P = 0.01); however, compared to standard-risk cytogenetics patients, the median PFS and 2-year OS were poorer (34 months vs. not reached, P = 0.02; 78.8% vs. 87.6%, P = 0.05). The independent predictors of PFS were non-hyperdiploidy, high-risk cytogenetics, and bone marrow plasma cells ≥ 30%, with hazard ratios of 2.01 (95% CI 1.25-3.25), 2.56 (95% CI 1.38-4.74), and 1.81 (95% CI 1.08-3.05), respectively, and those for OS were non-hyperdiploidy and serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 250 U/L, with hazard ratios of 2.53 (95% CI 1.24-5.46) and 3.53 (95% CI 1.50-6.96), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the coexistence of hyperdiploidy may ameliorate the adverse prognosis of multiple myelomapatients with high-risk cytogenetics. High-risk cytogenetics patients without hyperdiploidy showed the worst prognosis.
Authors: Daryl Tan; Gerrard Teoh; L C Lau; Alvin Lim; T H Lim; K C Yap; P Premalatha; Z T Lao; Nelson Wee; Christine Choo; H C Wee; S Su; Y S Lee; L H Lee; William Hwang; Y T Goh Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 10.047
Authors: Wee Joo Chng; Scott A Van Wier; Gregory J Ahmann; Jerry M Winkler; Syed M Jalal; Peter Leif Bergsagel; Marta Chesi; Mike C Trendle; Martin M Oken; Emily Blood; Kim Henderson; Rafael Santana-Dávila; Robert A Kyle; Morie A Gertz; Martha Q Lacy; Angela Dispenzieri; Philip R Greipp; Rafael Fonseca Journal: Blood Date: 2005-05-26 Impact factor: 22.113
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: S Wuilleme; N Robillard; L Lodé; F Magrangeas; H Beris; J-L Harousseau; J Proffitt; S Minvielle; H Avet-Loiseau Journal: Leukemia Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: C S Debes-Marun; G W Dewald; S Bryant; E Picken; R Santana-Dávila; N González-Paz; J M Winkler; R A Kyle; M A Gertz; T E Witzig; A Dispenzieri; M Q Lacy; S V Rajkumar; J A Lust; P R Greipp; R Fonseca Journal: Leukemia Date: 2003-02 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: Antonio Palumbo; Hervé Avet-Loiseau; Stefania Oliva; Henk M Lokhorst; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Laura Rosinol; Paul Richardson; Simona Caltagirone; Juan José Lahuerta; Thierry Facon; Sara Bringhen; Francesca Gay; Michel Attal; Roberto Passera; Andrew Spencer; Massimo Offidani; Shaji Kumar; Pellegrino Musto; Sagar Lonial; Maria T Petrucci; Robert Z Orlowski; Elena Zamagni; Gareth Morgan; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Brian G M Durie; Kenneth C Anderson; Pieter Sonneveld; Jésus San Miguel; Michele Cavo; S Vincent Rajkumar; Philippe Moreau Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 44.544