4.7 Article

Proposal and Validation of Prognostic Scoring Systems for IgG and IgA Monoclonal Gammopathies of Undetermined Significance

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 13, 页码 4439-4445

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-3150

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The presenting clinico-hematologic features of 1,283 patients with IgG and IgA monoclonal gammopathies of undetermined significance (MGUS) were correlated with the frequency of evolution into multiple myeloma (MM). Experimental Design: Two IgG MGUS populations were evaluated: a training sample (553 patients) and a test sample (378 patients); the IgA MGUS population consisted of 352 patients. Results: Forty-seven of the 553 training group patients and 22 of 378 test group IgG patients developed MM after a median follow-up of 6.7 and 3.6 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that serum monoclonal component (MC) levels of <= 1.5 g/dL, the absence of light-chain proteinuria and normal serum polyclonal immunoglobulin levels defined a prognostically favorable subset of patients, and could be used to stratify the patients into three groups at different 10-year risk of evolution (hazard ratio, 1.0, 5.04, 11.2; P < 0.001). This scoring system was validated in the test sample. Thirty of the 352 IgA patients developed MM after a median follow-up of 4.8 years, and multivariate analysis showed that hemoglobin levels of <12.5 g/dL and reduced serum polyclonal immunoglobulin correlated with progression. A pooled statistical analysis of all of the patients confirmed the validity of Mayo Clinic risk model showing that IgA class, serum MC levels, and light-chain proteinuria are the most important variables correlated with disease progression. Conclusions: Using simple variables, we validated a prognostic model for IgG MGUS. Among the IgA cases, the possible prognostic role of hemoglobin emerged in addition to a decrease in normal immunoglobulin levels.

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