4.2 Article

Combination of Genetic Aberration With International Staging System Classification for Stratification of Asian Multiple Myeloma Patients Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Journal

IN VIVO
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 611-619

Publisher

INT INST ANTICANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11518

Keywords

Multiple myeloma; autologous stem cell transplantation; prognostication; risk stratification

Funding

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HC15C3397]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aim: The aim of the study was to contribute to the development of adaptive risk stratification methods specific to Asian multiple myeloma (MM) patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Patients and Methods: We conducted this study to evaluate the prognostic impact of genetic abnormalities detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) on survival outcomes in combination with the International Staging System (ISS) classification in 161 MM patients. This was a single-center retrospective longitudinal cohort study of newly diagnosed MM patients undergoing ASCT within 12 months from initial diagnosis. A single-center retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed MM. Results: Patients were divided into 3 groups according to risk stratification: 1) low-risk, patients without del(17p13) nor t(14;16) or t(4;14) and ISS I/II; 2) high-risk, patients with t(4;14), regardless of ISS stage; 3) intermediate-risk, all remaining patients. The median PFS for the low-risk group was 18 months versus 13 months for the intermediate group (p=0.047, HR=1.527, 95%CI=1.006-2.316) versus 10 months for the high-risk group (p<0.001, HR=2.656, 95%CI=1.572-4.490). Conclusion: An ISS/FISH-based prognostication strategy was developed that can predict PFS for Asian MM patients undergoing ASCT.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available