4.7 Article

The recurrent IgH translocations are highly associated with nonhyperdiploid variant multiple myeloma

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 102, Issue 7, Pages 2562-2567

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2003-02-0493

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA62242, R01 CA83724-01, CA21115-25C] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aneuploid is ubiquitous in multiple myeloma (MM), and 4 cytogenetic subcategories are recognized: hypodiploid (associated with a shorter survival), pseudodiploid, hyperdiploid, and near-tetraploid MM. The hypodiploid, pseudodiploid, and near-tetraploid karyotypes can be referred to as the nonhyperdiploid MM. Immunoglobulin heavy-chain (IgH) translocations are seen in 60% of patients. We studied the relation between aneuploidy and IgH translocations in MM. Eighty patients with MM and abnormal metaphases were studied by means of interphase fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) to detect IgH translocations. We also studied a second cohort of 199 patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG]) for IgH translocations, chromosome 13 monosomy/deletions (Delta13), and ploidy by DNA content. Mayo Clinic patients with abnormal karyotypes and FISH-detected IgH translocation were more likely to be nonhyperdiploid (89% versus 39%, P < .0001). Remarkably, 88% of tested patients with hypodiploidy (16 of 18) and 90% of tested patients with tetraploidy (9 of 10) had an IgH translocation. ECOG patients with IgH translocations were more likely to have nonhyperdiploid MM by DNA content (68% versus 21%, P < .001). This association was seen predominantly in patients with recurrent chromosome partners to the IgH translocation (11q13, 4p16, and 16q23). The classification of MM into hyperdiploidy and nonhyperdiploidy is dictated largely by the recurrent (primary) IgH translocations in the latter. (C) 2003 by The American Society of Hematology.

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