Nuri Lee1, Sung-Min Kim2, Youngeun Lee3, Dajeong Jeong3, Jiwon Yun3, Sohee Ryu3, Sung-Soo Yoon4, Yong-Oon Ahn2, Sang Mee Hwang5, Dong Soon Lee2,3. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the prognostic value of gene variants and copy number variations (CNVs) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), an integrative genomic analysis was performed. METHODS: Sixty-seven patients with NDMM exhibiting more than 60% plasma cells in the bone marrow aspirate were enrolled in the study. Whole-exome sequencing was conducted on bone marrow nucleated cells. Mutation and CNV analyses were performed using the CNVkit and Nexus Copy Number software. In addition, karyotype and fluorescent in situ hybridization were utilized for the integrated analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-three driver gene mutations were detected in 63 patients with NDMM. The median number of mutations per patient was 2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.0-3.0, range = 0-8). MAML2 and BHLHE41 mutations were associated with decreased survival. CNVs were detected in 56 patients (72.7%; 56/67). The median number of CNVs per patient was 6.0 (95% CI = 5.7-7.0; range = 0-16). Among the CNVs, 1q gain, 6p gain, 6q loss, 8p loss, and 13q loss were associated with decreased survival. Additionally, 1q gain and 6p gain were independent adverse prognostic factors. Increased numbers of CNVs and driver gene mutations were associated with poor clinical outcomes. Cluster analysis revealed that patients with the highest number of driver mutations along with 1q gain, 6p gain, and 13q loss exhibited the poorest prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the known prognostic factors, the integrated analysis of genetic variations and CNVs could contribute to prognostic stratification of patients with NDMM.
BACKGROUND: To investigate the prognostic value of gene variants and copy number variations (CNVs) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), an integrative genomic analysis was performed. METHODS: Sixty-seven patients with NDMM exhibiting more than 60% plasma cells in the bone marrow aspirate were enrolled in the study. Whole-exome sequencing was conducted on bone marrow nucleated cells. Mutation and CNV analyses were performed using the CNVkit and Nexus Copy Number software. In addition, karyotype and fluorescent in situ hybridization were utilized for the integrated analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-three driver gene mutations were detected in 63 patients with NDMM. The median number of mutations per patient was 2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.0-3.0, range = 0-8). MAML2 and BHLHE41 mutations were associated with decreased survival. CNVs were detected in 56 patients (72.7%; 56/67). The median number of CNVs per patient was 6.0 (95% CI = 5.7-7.0; range = 0-16). Among the CNVs, 1q gain, 6p gain, 6q loss, 8p loss, and 13q loss were associated with decreased survival. Additionally, 1q gain and 6p gain were independent adverse prognostic factors. Increased numbers of CNVs and driver gene mutations were associated with poor clinical outcomes. Cluster analysis revealed that patients with the highest number of driver mutations along with 1q gain, 6p gain, and 13q loss exhibited the poorest prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the known prognostic factors, the integrated analysis of genetic variations and CNVs could contribute to prognostic stratification of patients with NDMM.
Authors: Aaron McKenna; Matthew Hanna; Eric Banks; Andrey Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrew Kernytsky; Kiran Garimella; David Altshuler; Stacey Gabriel; Mark Daly; Mark A DePristo Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Joseph R Mikhael; David Dingli; Vivek Roy; Craig B Reeder; Francis K Buadi; Suzanne R Hayman; Angela Dispenzieri; Rafael Fonseca; Taimur Sher; Robert A Kyle; Yi Lin; Stephen J Russell; Shaji Kumar; P Leif Bergsagel; Steven R Zeldenrust; Nelson Leung; Matthew T Drake; Prashant Kapoor; Stephen M Ansell; Thomas E Witzig; John A Lust; Robert J Dalton; Morie A Gertz; A Keith Stewart; Keith Stewart; S Vincent Rajkumar; Asher Chanan-Khan; Martha Q Lacy Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Brian S White; Irena Lanc; Julie O'Neal; Harshath Gupta; Robert S Fulton; Heather Schmidt; Catrina Fronick; Edward A Belter; Mark Fiala; Justin King; Greg J Ahmann; Mary DeRome; Elaine R Mardis; Ravi Vij; John F DiPersio; Joan Levy; Daniel Auclair; Michael H Tomasson Journal: Blood Cancer J Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 11.037
Authors: Mihaiela L Dragoș; Iuliu C Ivanov; Mihaela Mențel; Irina C Văcărean-Trandafir; Adriana Sireteanu; Amalia A Titianu; Angela S Dăscălescu; Alexandru B Stache; Daniela Jitaru; Dragoș L Gorgan Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Aleksander Salomon-Perzyński; Joanna Barankiewicz; Marcin Machnicki; Irena Misiewicz-Krzemińska; Michał Pawlak; Sylwia Radomska; Agnieszka Krzywdzińska; Aleksandra Bluszcz; Piotr Stawiński; Małgorzata Rydzanicz; Natalia Jakacka; Iwona Solarska; Katarzyna Borg; Zofia Spyra-Górny; Tomasz Szpila; Bartosz Puła; Sebastian Grosicki; Tomasz Stokłosa; Rafał Płoski; Ewa Lech-Marańda; Jana Jakubikova; Krzysztof Jamroziak Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-07-12