4.6 Article

Quantification of clonal circulating plasma cells in relapsed multiple myeloma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 167, Issue 4, Pages 500-505

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.13067

Keywords

circulating plasma cells; multiple myeloma; survival

Categories

Funding

  1. Mayo Clinic Hematological Malignancies Program
  2. National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA [CA107476, CA62242, CA100707, CA168762, CA 83724]
  3. Jabbs Foundation, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  4. Henry J. Predolin Foundation, USA
  5. CTSA from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1 TR000135]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The presence of clonal circulating plasma cells (cPCs) remains a marker of high-risk disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. However, its prognostic utility in MM patients with previously treated disease is unknown. We studied 647 consecutive patients with previously treated MM seen at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester who had their peripheral blood evaluated for cPCs by multi-parameter flow cytometry. Of these patients, 145 had actively relapsing disease while the remaining 502 had disease that was in a plateau and included 68 patients in complete remission (CR) and 434 patients with stable disease. Patients with actively relapsing disease were more likely to have clonal cPCs than those in a plateau (P<0001). None of the patients in CR had any clonal cPCs detected. Among patients whose disease was in a plateau, the presence of clonal cPCs predicted for a worse median survival (22months vs. not reached; P=0004). Among actively relapsing patients, the presence of 100 cPCs predicted for a worse survival after flow cytometry analysis (12months vs. 33months; P<0001). Future studies are needed to determine the role of these findings in developing a risk-adapted treatment approach in MM patients with actively relapsing disease.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available