4.7 Article

Hypodiploidy is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma

期刊

BLOOD
卷 98, 期 7, 页码 2229-2238

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V98.7.2229

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conventional karyotypes performed before any treatment in 208 patients with multiple myeloma were reviewed by the Groupe Francais de Cytogenetique Hematologique. A total of 138 patients displayed complex chromosomal abnormalities (CCAs). According to the chromosome number pattern, a first group of 75 patients had a hyperdiploid karyotype. A second group of 63 patients referred to as the hypodiploid group had either pseudodiploid, hypodiploid, or near-tetraploid karyotypes. Of 159 treated patients available for survival analysis, 116 had an abnormal karyotype. The comparison of overall survival (OS) between hyperdiploid and hypodiploid patients showed a highly significant difference (median OS 33.8 vs 12.6 months, respectively, P < .001). The presence of 14q32 rearrangements (36 of 116 patients) worsened the prognosis (median OS 17.6 vs 29.9 months, P < .02). The presence of chromosome 13q abnormalities (13qA, 63 patients) did not modify OS in CCA patients (median OS 20.6 vs 27.8 months, P < .59). However, taking into account the whole series including normal karyotypes, 13qA (63 of 159 patients) had a significant impact on OS (median 20.6 vs 37.1 months, P < .04). In the same way, the presence of a hypodiploid karyotype (52 of 159 patients) had a strong prognostic value (OS 12.8 vs 44.5 months, P < .000 01). A multivariate analysis including stage, beta (2)-microglobulin, bone marrow plasmocytosis, treatment type, 13qA, and hyperdiploidy and hypodiploidy showed that a hypodiploid karyotype was the first independent factor for OS (P < .001), followed by treatment approach. These results confirm that the chromosome number pattern of malignant plasma cells is a very powerful prognostic factor in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. (C) 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据