4.7 Review

International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma

Journal

LANCET ONCOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 12, Pages E538-E548

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Celgene
  2. Ortho Biotech
  3. Onyx
  4. Amgen
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  6. Genmab A/S
  7. Janssen-Cilag
  8. Millennium Pharmaceuticals
  9. Onyx Pharmaceuticals
  10. Sanofi Aventis
  11. Array BioPharma
  12. Janssen
  13. Millennium Takeda
  14. Millennium
  15. Novartis
  16. Cephalon/Teva
  17. Abbvie
  18. Pfizer
  19. Jannsen
  20. Research and Development
  21. Sanofi
  22. Jansen-Cilag

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This International Myeloma Working Group consensus updates the disease definition of multiple myeloma to include validated biomarkers in addition to existing requirements of attributable CRAB features (hypercalcaemia, renal failure, anaemia, and bone lesions). These changes are based on the identification of biomarkers associated with near inevitable development of CRAB features in patients who would otherwise be regarded as having smouldering multiple myeloma. A delay in application of the label of multiple myeloma and postponement of therapy could be detrimental to these patients. In addition to this change, we clarify and update the underlying laboratory and radiographic variables that fulfil the criteria for the presence of myeloma-defining CRAB features, and the histological and monoclonal protein requirements for the disease diagnosis. Finally, we provide specific metrics that new biomarkers should meet for inclusion in the disease definition. The International Myeloma Working Group recommends the implementation of these criteria in routine practice and in future clinical trials, and recommends that future studies analyse any differences in outcome that might occur as a result of the new disease definition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available