4.7 Article

Outcome according to cytogenetic abnormalities and DNA ploidy in myeloma patients receiving short induction with weekly bortezomib followed by maintenance

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 118, Issue 17, Pages 4547-4553

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-345801

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Pethema (Spanish Program for the Treatment of Hematologic Diseases, Madrid, Spain)
  2. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria (FIS) [06/1354, PS2009/01 897]
  3. Red Tematica Cooperativa en Cancer (RTICC) [RD06/0020/0005/0006/0031]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) such as t(4;14), t(14;16) or del(17p), and nonhyperdiploidy are associated with poor prognosis in multiple myeloma. We evaluated the influence of CAs by FISH and DNA ploidy by flow cytometry on response and survival in 232 elderly, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients receiving an induction with weekly bortezomib followed by maintenance therapy with bortezomib-based combinations. Response was similar in the high-risk and standard-risk CA groups, both after induction (21% vs 27% complete responses [CRs]) and maintenance (39% vs 45% CR). However, high-risk patients showed shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than standard-risk patients, both from the first (24 vs 33 months; P = .04) and second randomization (17 vs 27 months; P = .01). This also translated into shorter overall survival (OS) for high-risk patients (3-year OS: 55% vs 77%; P = .001). This adverse prognosis applied to either t(4; 14) or del(17p). Concerning DNA ploidy, hyperdiploid patients showed longer OS than nonhyperdiploid patients (77% vs 63% at 3 years; P = .04), and this was more evident in patients treated with bortezomib, thalidomide, and prednisone (77% vs 53% at 3 years; P = .02). The present schema does not overcome the negative prognosis of high-risk CAs and nonhyperdiploidy. This trial was registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00443235. (Blood. 2011; 118(17): 4547-4553)

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