Literature DB >> 8562962

Role of different hematologic variables in defining the risk of malignant transformation in monoclonal gammopathy.

L Baldini1, A Guffanti, B M Cesana, M Colombi, O Chiorboli, I Damilano, A T Maiolo.   

Abstract

The presenting clinico-hematologic features of 386 patients with nonmyelomatous monoclonal gammopathy (MG) were correlated with the frequency of malignant transformation to evaluate the most important variables conditioning its evolution into multiple myeloma (MM) or Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Most of the patients (335) had monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS: 39 IgA, 242 IgG, 54 IgM): the remaining 51 patients (12 IgA, 39 IgG) fulfilled all of the MGUS diagnostic criteria (according to Durie) except that bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) content was 10% to 30%, and so they were defined as having monoclonal gammopathy of borderline significance (MGBS). There were no significant differences between the MGUS and MGBS groups in terms of age, sex, or median follow-up. After a median follow-up of 70 and 53 months, respectively, 23 of 335 MGUS and 19 of 51 MGBS patients had undergone a malignant evolution. Univariate analysis of the IgA and IgG patients showed that the cumulative probability of the disease evolving into MM correlated with diagnostic definition (MGBS v MGUS), BMPC content (> or = 10% v < 5% and < or = 5% v > 5%) and reduced serum polyclonal Ig. In the IgG cases, there was also a significant correlation with detectable Bence Jones proteinuria, serum monoclonal component (MC) levels and age at diagnosis (> 70 v < = or 55 years). In the IgG cases as a whole, the same variables remained in the Cox model where the BMPC percentage was considered after natural logarithmic transformation and the monoclonal component as g/dL value. The relative risks of developing MM are the following: 2.4 for each 1 g/dL increase of IgG, serum MC, 3.5 for detectable light chain proteinuria, 4.4 for the increase of 1 unit in log. BMPC percentage, 6.1 for age > 70, 3.6 and 13.1 for a reduction in one or two polyclonal Ig. In conclusion, our study allows the identification of a particular subset of MGUS patients (MC < = or 1.5 g/dL, BMPC < 5%, no reduction in polyclonal Ig and no detectable light chain proteinuria) at very low-risk of evolution, who can be considered as having benign monoclonal gammopathies. We also describe a previously undefined group of MG patients (with monoclonal gammopathy of borderline significance) who are at high-risk of malignant evolution. These findings could have a considerable impact on the cost/benefit ratio of monitoring programs in these patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8562962

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood        ISSN: 0006-4971            Impact factor:   22.113


  16 in total

Review 1.  Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smoldering multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Robert A Kyle; S Vincent Rajkumar
Journal:  Curr Hematol Malig Rep       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.952

Review 2.  Management of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM).

Authors:  Robert A Kyle; S Vincent Rajkumar
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.990

3.  Immunoglobulin G treatment of secondary immunodeficiencies in the era of novel therapies.

Authors:  M Seppänen
Journal:  Clin Exp Immunol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  Phenotypic and genotypic alterations characterize patients bearing plasma cell dyscrasias with a high M-component.

Authors:  C Greco; F Ameglio; F Alvino; A Mosiello; A M Cianciulli; I Venturo; G Del Monte; M Giampaolo; A W Tong; G M Gandolfo
Journal:  Cell Prolif       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 6.831

5.  Risk of progression of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance into lymphoplasmacytic malignancies: determining demographic differences in the USA.

Authors:  Ronald S Go; Herbert C Heien; Lindsey R Sangaralingham; Elizabeth B Habermann; Nilay D Shah
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 9.941

6.  Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and risk of infections: a population-based study.

Authors:  Sigurdur Y Kristinsson; Min Tang; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Magnus Björkholm; Lynn R Goldin; Cecilie Blimark; Ulf-Henrik Mellqvist; Anders Wahlin; Ingemar Turesson; Ola Landgren
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 9.941

7.  The relationship between hypogammaglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and humoral immunodeficiency: a case series.

Authors:  Robert Marc Zemble; Patricia A Takach; Arnold I Levinson
Journal:  J Clin Immunol       Date:  2011-06-05       Impact factor: 8.317

Review 8.  Disparities in the prevalence, pathogenesis and progression of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and multiple myeloma between blacks and whites.

Authors:  A J Greenberg; C M Vachon; S V Rajkumar
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 11.528

Review 9.  Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma: IMWG consensus perspectives risk factors for progression and guidelines for monitoring and management.

Authors:  R A Kyle; B G M Durie; S V Rajkumar; O Landgren; J Blade; G Merlini; N Kröger; H Einsele; D H Vesole; M Dimopoulos; J San Miguel; H Avet-Loiseau; R Hajek; W M Chen; K C Anderson; H Ludwig; P Sonneveld; S Pavlovsky; A Palumbo; P G Richardson; B Barlogie; P Greipp; R Vescio; I Turesson; J Westin; M Boccadoro
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 11.528

10.  Long-Term Follow-up of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance.

Authors:  Robert A Kyle; Dirk R Larson; Terry M Therneau; Angela Dispenzieri; Shaji Kumar; James R Cerhan; S Vincent Rajkumar
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.