Literature DB >> 32647419

Risk Stratification in Multiple Myeloma in Indian Settings.

Rajan Kapoor1, Rajiv Kumar2, A P Dubey3.   

Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) constitutes 10% of all hematological malignancies. The last one decade has seen a phenomenal progress in the therapeutic options available for the management. Although it still remains incurable, with the advent of newer therapies, the median survival in many risk groups is now around 10 years. Conventional karyotyping of bone marrow samples has a positivity rate of 20-30% at diagnosis in patients of Multiple Myeloma. However, array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH) has revealed that almost all MM patients have cytogenetic abnormalities which may affect the pathophysiology, selection of therapy and outcomes of the disease. The progress in the field of exploring the genetic landscape of multiple myeloma with multiple tools like Fluorescent in-situ hybridization, aCGH, Next Generation Sequencing, Flow cytometry, etc., combined with the traditional risk stratification markers like albumin, β2 microglobulin and LDH, is gradually leading towards a risk-adapted therapy. The recent R-ISS risk stratification has combined these two group of information to validate a prognostic score which is an improvement over the past tools like DSS and ISS. In view of the plethora of information available on the multitude of cytogenetic markers there is a tendency to evaluate for all of them at diagnosis, especially in research centers. This leads to a significant increase in the cost of therapy of Multiple Myeloma in day-to-day clinical practice and an increased out-of-pocket spending to the patient, especially in resource-limited settings like India. Also, there is a variable approach to pre-therapy cytogenetic evaluation and risk stratification at different Hematology centres in the country, often dictated by financial constraints and availability of specialized tests. This review discusses the risk stratification markers and tools available in MM in 2019 and how it can be adapted in the resource constraint settings so as to derive the maximum prognostic information from a minimal prognostic panel, as well as lead to standardization of the prognostic protocols in resource limited settings across various Hematology centres in India. © Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cytogenetics; Myeloma; Prognosis; Risk stratification

Year:  2019        PMID: 32647419      PMCID: PMC7326869          DOI: 10.1007/s12288-019-01240-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus        ISSN: 0971-4502            Impact factor:   0.900


  52 in total

1.  Presence of monoclonal free light chains in the serum predicts risk of progression in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.

Authors:  S Vincent Rajkumar; Robert A Kyle; Terry M Therneau; Raynell J Clark; Arthur R Bradwell; L Joseph Melton; Dirk R Larson; Matthew F Plevak; Jerry A Katzmann
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 6.998

2.  Prognostic value of serum free light chain ratio at diagnosis in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Marie-Christine Kyrtsonis; Theodoros P Vassilakopoulos; Nicoletta Kafasi; Sotirios Sachanas; Tatiana Tzenou; Argiroula Papadogiannis; Zacharoula Galanis; Christina Kalpadakis; Maria Dimou; Elias Kyriakou; Maria K Angelopoulou; Maria N Dimopoulou; Marina P Siakantaris; Evangelia M Dimitriadou; Styliani I Kokoris; Panayiotis Panayiotidis; Gerassimos A Pangalis
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 6.998

3.  Impact of genetic abnormalities on survival after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  G Schilling; T Hansen; A Shimoni; T Zabelina; J-A Pérez-Simón; J-A Simon-Perez; N C Gutierrez; W Bethge; P Liebisch; R Schwerdtfeger; M Bornhäuser; S Otterstetter; E M M Penas; J Dierlamm; F Ayuk; D Atanackovic; U Bacher; C Bokemeyer; A Zander; J San Miguel; J S Miguel; A Nagler; N Kröger
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2008-04-17       Impact factor: 11.528

Review 4.  Multiple myeloma: increasing evidence for a multistep transformation process.

Authors:  M Hallek; P L Bergsagel; K C Anderson
Journal:  Blood       Date:  1998-01-01       Impact factor: 22.113

5.  A TC classification-based predictor for multiple myeloma using multiplexed real-time quantitative PCR.

Authors:  M F Kaiser; B A Walker; S L Hockley; D B Begum; C P Wardell; D Gonzalez; F M Ross; F E Davies; G J Morgan
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 11.528

6.  Gain of chromosome 1q portends worse prognosis in multiple myeloma despite novel agent-based induction regimens and autologous transplantation.

Authors:  Gunjan L Shah; Heather Landau; Dory Londono; Sean M Devlin; Satyajit Kosuri; Alexander M Lesokhin; Nikoletta Lendvai; Hani Hassoun; David J Chung; Guenther Koehne; Suresh C Jhanwar; Ola Landgren; Ross Levine; Sergio A Giralt
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2017-01-12

7.  Molecular dissection of hyperdiploid multiple myeloma by gene expression profiling.

Authors:  Wee J Chng; Shaji Kumar; Scott Vanwier; Greg Ahmann; Tammy Price-Troska; Kim Henderson; Tae-Hoon Chung; Seungchan Kim; George Mulligan; Barbara Bryant; John Carpten; Morie Gertz; S Vincent Rajkumar; Martha Lacy; Angela Dispenzieri; Robert Kyle; Philip Greipp; P Leif Bergsagel; Rafael Fonseca
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2007-04-01       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  Frequent gain of chromosome band 1q21 in plasma-cell dyscrasias detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization: incidence increases from MGUS to relapsed myeloma and is related to prognosis and disease progression following tandem stem-cell transplantation.

Authors:  Ichiro Hanamura; James P Stewart; Yongsheng Huang; Fenghuang Zhan; Madhumita Santra; Jeffrey R Sawyer; Klaus Hollmig; Maurizio Zangarri; Mauricio Pineda-Roman; Frits van Rhee; Federica Cavallo; Bart Burington; John Crowley; Guido Tricot; Bart Barlogie; John D Shaughnessy
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2006-05-16       Impact factor: 22.113

9.  Autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Long-term results.

Authors:  Lalit Kumar; Rakesh Reddy Boya; Rohit Pai; P Harish; Anjali Mookerjee; B Sainath; Mukesh Bhimrao Patekar; Ranjit Kumar Sahoo; Prabhat Singh Malik; O D Sharma; Ritu Gupta
Journal:  Natl Med J India       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 0.537

10.  Clinical and biologic implications of recurrent genomic aberrations in myeloma.

Authors:  Rafael Fonseca; Emily Blood; Montserrat Rue; David Harrington; Martin M Oken; Robert A Kyle; Gordon W Dewald; Brian Van Ness; Scott A Van Wier; Kimberly J Henderson; Richard J Bailey; Philip R Greipp
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2003-02-06       Impact factor: 22.113

View more
  1 in total

1.  CD24 Is a Prognostic Marker for Multiple Myeloma Progression and Survival.

Authors:  Noa Gross Even-Zohar; Marjorie Pick; Liron Hofstetter; Adir Shaulov; Boaz Nachmias; Eyal Lebel; Moshe E Gatt
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 4.964

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.