| Literature DB >> 35465644 |
Hoi Ki Karen Tang1, Chi Yeung Fung1, Gareth J Morgan2, Shaji Kumar3, Lisa Siu4, Ho Wan Alvin Ip5, Sze Fai Yip6, Ka Ngai Harry Lau7, Chi Kuen Lau8, Harold Lee9, Kwan Hung Leung10, Bonnie Kho11, Howard Wong11, Cheong Ngai1, Yu Yan Hwang1, Joycelyn Sim1, Yok Lam Kwong1, Chor Sang Chim12.
Abstract
Introduction: Bortezomib has been reported to favourably impact the outcomes of t(4;14) and del(17p) in multiple myeloma (MM), but its impact on gain 1q (+1q) is unknown.Entities:
Keywords: chromosomal aberrations; fluorescence in situ hybridization; gain 1q; multiple myeloma; risk stratification
Year: 2022 PMID: 35465644 PMCID: PMC9019371 DOI: 10.1177/20406207221082043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Adv Hematol ISSN: 2040-6207
Baseline characteristics of patients with +1q and without +1q.
| Characteristic | No +1q | +1q | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | Median | 58 | 64 | 62 | |||
| Range | 37–89 | 41–98 | 37–8 | ||||
| ⩾65 | 17 | 20.5% | 80 | 47.9% | 97 | 38.8% | |
| <65 | 66 | 79.5% | 87 | 52.1% | 153 | 61.2% | |
| Gender | Male | 48 | 57.8% | 89 | 53.3% | 137 | 54.8% |
| Female | 35 | 42.2% | 78 | 46.7% | 113 | 45.2% | |
| ISS | 1 | 27 | 34.2% | 37 | 22.4% | 64 | 26.2% |
| 2 | 24 | 30.4% | 51 | 30.9% | 75 | 30.7% | |
| 3 | 28 | 35.4% | 77 | 46.7% | 105 | 43% | |
| LDH | >ULN | 16 | 21.6% | 58 | 36.7% | 74 | 31.9% |
| ⩽ULN | 58 | 78.4% | 100 | 63.3% | 158 | 68.1% | |
| Isotype | IgG | 48 | 57.8% | 56 | 45.5% | 104 | 50.5% |
| IgA | 7 | 8.4% | 37 | 30.1% | 44 | 21.4% | |
| IgM | 0 | 0% | 1 | 0.8% | 1 | 0.5% | |
| IgD | 0 | 0% | 2 | 1.6% | 2 | 1% | |
| Light chain | 26 | 31.3% | 25 | 20.3% | 51 | 24.8% | |
| Non-secretory | 2 | 2.4% | 2 | 1.6% | 4 | 1.9% | |
| Upfront transplant | Yes | 56 | 70% | 56 | 43.1% | 112 | 53.3% |
| No | 24 | 30% | 74 | 56.9% | 98 | 46.7% |
ISS, International Staging System; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; ULN, upper limit of normal.
Figure 1.OS and EFS among MM patients with +1q (red) and without +1q (blue).
Figure 2.Post-relapse/progression survival among +1q (red) and without +1q (blue).
Multivariate analysis (Number of observations used = 221. t(14;16) was not included in the model due to small case number).
|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | 95% confidence interval | |||||
| ISS | 3 | 105 | 0.004 | 0.04 | 1.395 | 1.015–1.917 |
| 2 | 75 | Ref | ||||
| 1 | 64 | Ref | ||||
| LDH | >ULN | 74 | 0.000212 | 0.046 | 1.696 | 1.009–2.851 |
| ⩽ULN | 158 | Ref | ||||
| Del(17p) | Yes | 26 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 2.730 | 1.479–5.036 |
| No | 224 | Ref | ||||
| Yes | 52 | 0.01 | 0.018 | 1.929 | 1.118–3.328 | |
| No | 193 | Ref | ||||
| Gain(1q) | Yes | 167 | 0.00025 | 0.037 | 1.840 | 1.036–3.268 |
| No | 83 | Ref | ||||
ISS, International Staging System; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; ULN, upper limit of normal.
Figure 3.OS and EFS comparing without +1q (blue), amp 1q (green), and gain 1q (red).
Figure 4.OS according to +1q and ASCT status (without +1q and ASCT: blue, +1q and ASCT: red, and +1q and no ASCT: green).
Figure 5.OS according to risk score 0 (blue), 1–2 (red) and 3–4 (green).
OS according to risk factor score.
| No. of risk factors | Frequency (%) | Median OS (months) | HR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 31 (13.7) | Not reached | |||
| 1–2 | 137 (60.6) | 94 | |||
| 3–4 | 58 (25.7) | 48 | |||
| 0 | 3.22 | 1.36–7.64 | 0.005 | ||
| 0 | 6.16 | 2.24–16.96 | 0.000106 | ||
| 1–2 | 1.86 | 1.13–3.09 | 0.014 |
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival.