|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEOPLASIA
From the Research Cytogenetic Laboratory,
Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris; Genetic Laboratory, INSERM EMI9906,
IFRMP23, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen; Hematology Laboratory,
Hôpital Universitaire Dupuytren, Limoges; Onco-Hematology Genetic
Laboratory, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Grenoble; Hematology
Department, Hôpital Jacques Monod, Le Havre, France.
Conventional karyotypes performed before any treatment in 208 patients with multiple myeloma were reviewed by the Groupe
Français de Cytogénétique Hématologique. 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, Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal B-cell
neoplasia characterized by the accumulation in bone marrow of malignant
plasma cells producing a monoclonal immunoglobulin.1
Survival ranges from a few months to more than 10 years,1,2 in keeping with the great heterogeneity observed
in this disease.3 A median survival of about 2 years was
obtained with conventional chemotherapy, but new trials using high-dose
therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation have improved
the remission rate, event-free survival, and overall survival (OS) in
younger patients.4 Therefore, it appears essential, at
diagnosis, to recognize clinical or biological parameters predicting
the outcome and identifying patients for whom an aggressive therapy
would be indicated.2,5 Several prognostic factors have
been reported, either related to the proliferative rate of plasma cells
as the labeling index6 or to tumor burden: Patients
This prospective collaborative study enrolled 100 female and 108 male
patients. The median age was 64 years (range, 25-96). According to
Durie and Salmon staging,19 37 (18%) and 24 (11%) patients were stage I and II, respectively, while 147 (71%) were stage
III MM. A total of 196 patients were karyotyped at the time of
diagnosis and 12 during evolution of untreated stage I or smoldering MM.20 The monoclonal component was immunoglobulin G (IgG)
in 126 patients, IgA in 53, IgD in 1, IgM in 1, 25 expressed only light
chains, and 2 were nonsecretory MM. Twenty-nine patients had renal
failure (22 stage III, 3 stage II, 4 stage I).
Twenty-four patients (11%) had a previous history of monoclonal
gammopathy of undetermined significance.21 Thirteen had another malignancy, either known before MM or diagnosed in association with MM. The main clinical, hematologic, and biochemical
characteristics of these patients are listed in Table
1.
Treatment regimens Patients were treated according to several different clinical trials. Approval was obtained from the institutional review board for these studies. Informed consent was provided according to the Declaration of Helsinki. A total of 100 patients received conventional-dose chemotherapy: either monochemotherapy, mainly with melphalan prednisone or cyclophosphamide prednisone (63 patients), or polychemotherapy consisting of vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone or vincristine, cyclophosphamide, melphalan, and prednisone (37 patients). Seventy-one patients were enrolled in high-dose chemotherapy regimens followed by 1 or 2 autologous bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantations (HDC SCT). One patient received an allogeneic bone marrow transplant. Thirty-three did not receive any therapy because of either the presence of an asymptomatic disease (18 patients: 11 stage I, 3 stage II, 4 stage III) or the occurrence of an early death (15 patients). For 3 patients, information on the treatment was not available (Table 1).Cytogenetic analysis Conventional chromosome studies were undertaken before any treatment, mainly on bone marrow (202 cases), seldom on peripheral blood (4 cases), and in 2 cases on bone tumor.Initially, the trial required 2 simultaneous culture protocols to precisely determine the best conditions to detect the MM malignant clone: a 3-day unstimulated culture and a 4- to 7-day culture with interleukin-6 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor.16,22,23 However, the analysis of the first 100 patients enrolled confirmed that the use of cytokines did not improve the malignant clone detection,24 and it was decided that the following inclusions would require only a 3-day unstimulated culture. RHG banding was used for all karyotypes. In 10 cases whole chromosome painting was performed to precisely determine the origin of deleted or derivative chromosomes. Chromosomal abnormalities were described according to ISCN.25 Standard criteria to define a clone were applied, but 12 karyotypes with only 1 MM characteristic abnormal metaphase were included: 9 were hyperdiploid (cases 3, 7, 22, 27, 31, 46, 50, 60, 71) and 3 were pseudodiploid or hypodiploid with an 11;14 translocation (cases 80, 98, 104). A minimum of 30 fully analyzed metaphases was required to include a normal karyotype. Each karyotype was critically reviewed by the participants of the GFCH at 2 successive workshops before it was recorded in the study. Statistical methods Because patients included in this multicenter protocol received different treatment regimens, no standard definition of response, partial remission, or complete remission was applicable.26 Thus, OS from time of diagnosis was chosen as the single end point, whatever the cause of death. A total of 159 patients were eligible for survival analysis. Exclusion criteria were unknown or no treatment, allogeneic bone marrow transplantation, or karyotype performed during evolution of an untreated myeloma. Curves were plotted according to Kaplan and Meier27 and were compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis of different prognostic factors was carried out using the Cox regression model.28 Cut-off values for biological parameters were chosen according to previously reported series and were 3 mg/L for 2-microglobulin, 200 µM/L for creatinine, and 20%
for bone marrow plasmocytosis. Analysis was performed using the JPSI
statistical software (developed by P. Kwiatkowski, Centre J Perrin,
Clermont Ferrand, France).
Myeloma clone detection A total of 138 (66%) of 208 MM patients displayed numerical and structural complex chromosomal abnormalities (CCAs) related to myeloma. The remaining 70 karyotypes (34%) were considered not representative of the MM cell population because 55 were normal karyotypes and 15 showed either an isolated numerical or structural abnormality, mainly loss or gain of sexual chromosomes (9 cases), loss or gain of one autosome (2 cases), or a single rearranged chromosome (4 cases). A mean of 24.5 mitoses was studied per patient (range, 6-94) with a mean of 10.4 abnormal mitoses (range, 1-38). All but 14 abnormal karyotypes showed a mixture of normal and abnormal cells.CCA detection increased with disease stage: 14 (38%) of 37 for stage I
patients, 13 (54%) of 24 for stage II, and 111 (75.5%) of 147 for
stage III patients. Complete karyotypes are listed in Table
2.
Numerical abnormalities Patients with abnormal karyotypes belong to 1 of 2 clearly different groups according to the chromosome number pattern. A first group of 75 patients (54%) had hyperdiploid karyotypes (mean 52.5 chromosomes, range, 47-75) characterized by recurrent gains of chromosomes 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, and 19. The most common resulting trisomies were, in decreasing order, trisomies 9, 19, 15, 5, 11, 3, and 7 (Table 3). A total of 45 (60%) of 75 patients had at least 5 of the 7 recurrent chromosome gains. A second group of 63 patients (hypodiploid group, 46%) had either pseudodiploid karyotypes (9 cases, 7%), hypodiploid karyotypes (49 cases, 35%) with duplicated hypotetraploid mitoses in 9 cases, or only hypotetraploid karyotypes (5 cases, 4%). The mean chromosome number was 43.4 (range, 30-45) and 83 (range, 75-90) for hypodiploid and hypotetraploid karyotypes, respectively.
Structural abnormalities Structural abnormalities were present in all but 4 hyperdiploid cases. The number of structural abnormalities per cell was higher in the hypodiploid group (average 9.1) than in the hyperdiploid group (average 5.1). The same abnormalities were present in the 2 groups, with identical or different frequencies (Table 4).
Chromosome 13. Implication of chromosome 13 (13qA) was the most common abnormality. Complete monosomy 13 was found in 66 cases, while partial deletion including the 13q14 region was recorded in only 8 cases. The 13qA's were significantly associated with the hypodiploid group (P < .001). Chromosome 1. Total or partial duplications of chromosome 1 long arm were detected in 57 cases and were more frequent in the hypodiploid group (49%) than in the hyperdiploid one (35%). Chromosome 1 short arm was affected in 46 cases, equally distributed in the 2 groups. The presence of chromosome derivatives resulting from unbalanced translocations of chromosome whole arms was found as a frequent event, especially for 1q but also for other chromosomes.Breaks at immunoglobulin gene locations. The 14q32 region was implicated in 43 cases (31%), including 8 cases (11%) in the hyperdiploid and 35 cases (56%) in the hypodiploid group (P < .001). Rearrangements were mainly translocations of identified chromosome regions leading to t(8;14)(q24;q32) in 2 cases or to t(11;14)(q13;q32) in 25 cases (18%); in 4 cases the partner of 14q32 was identified as 1q12, 12p?, 7q22, and 3p11 (1 case each). In 11 cases the partner was not identified, and the rearrangement was described as add(14)(q32). In 7 cases an interstitial deletion involved the 14q23q32 region. In 3 cases with a t(11;14), the second chromosome 14 was rearranged; it was implicated in a t(8;14) in 1 case and in a common deletion del(14)(q23q32) in 2.The 22q11 and 2p12 regions. The 22q11 region was involved in 4 translocations (2 with chromosome 1 and 2 with unknown material) and 6 deletions. The 2p12 region was implicated only once in a Burkitt-type translocation. Chromosome 8. Total or partial loss of chromosome 8 was identified as a frequent recurrent change that was found in 42 cases equally distributed in the 2 groups. This abnormality resulted either from complete monosomy of chromosome 8 (20 cases), from translocation on 8p of unknown material (14 cases), or part of identified chromosome (8 cases). In 5 of these cases the translocation was located in centromeric regions, leading to dicentric chromosomes in 4 cases. Chromosome 11. An 11q13 involvement was found in 31 cases, corresponding to an 11;14 translocation in 25 cases, mainly in the hypodiploid group (22 cases) and seldom in the hyperdiploid group (3 cases) (P < .001). Noteworthy, the t(11;14) was found in 7 of the 9 pseudodiploid karyotypes. Breaks in the 8q24 region and 6q deletions. These were equally involved in the 2 groups. Survival: correlation with clinical and biological features The median follow-up of the 159 patients available for analysis was 32 months. The median OS of these patients, whatever the cytogenetic result, was 30.6 months. Previously reported prognostic factors were found to correlate with survival in univariate analysis: an adverse prognostic was observed in patients with stage III (127 of 159, median survival 27.1 months, while the median was not reached for stage I and II patients, P < .01),2-microglobulin more than 3 mg/L (90 of 159 patients, median survival 21 vs 55 months, P < .0001),
bone marrow plasmocytosis more than 20% (113 of 159 patients, median
survival 27.1, while the median was not reached for patients with
< 20%, P < .04), and creatinine level more than 200 mM/L (22 of 159 patients, median survival 16.7 vs 32.4 months,
P < .03).
The 43 patients with normal karyotypes had a longer survival than the
116 patients with CCAs: median OS 45.2 months versus 22.7 months,
respectively, P < .02 (Figure
1A).
The median OS of 64 hyperdiploid patients, 33.8 months, was significantly higher than that of 52 patients belonging to the hypodiploid group, 12.5 months, P < .001 (Figure 1B). This significant difference was maintained whatever the
treatment Whatever the group, hyperdiploid or hypodiploid, an implication of the14q32 region (36 patients) significantly worsened the prognosis (median survival 17.8 months vs 29.9, P < .02). We failed to find any prognostic value to the presence of an 11q13 abnormality, which was present in 26 patients (median survival 18.4 months vs 25.5 months). The presence of a deleted chromosome 6q, a complete loss or partial deletion of chromosome 8, a rearrangement of chromosome 8q24 region, or an alteration of chromosome 1p or 1q was not correlated with the outcome. Comparing OS of CCA patients with (63 patients) or without (53 patients) a chromosome 13 abnormality, we did not find any significant difference (P < .59) (Figure 1E). In the same way, 13qA did not modify OS in hyperdiploid patients (42 vs 31.7 months, P < .72) or in hypodiploid patients (12.5 vs 12 months, P < .43). Conversely, in patients bearing 13qA, those with a hypodiploid karyotype had a worse outcome (median OS 12.5 vs 42 months, P < .001) (Figure 1F). However, comparing the patients with 13q abnormalities with all other patients including those with normal cytogenetics (63 of 159 patients), median survival was significantly different: 20.6 and 37.1 months, respectively (P < .04). In the same way, comparing OS of the hypodiploid patients versus all other patients (52 vs 107), we found a highly significant difference:median OS 12.5 versus 44.5 months, respectively (P < .000 01). Within the high-risk population characterized by both a high
A multivariate analysis of several prognostic factors, including Durie
and Salmon stage, creatinine, Prognostic model CCA patients were stratified according to the first unfavorable prognostic factor identified by multivariate analysis, hypodiploidy, and to a high2-microglobulin level. This led to
identification of 3 different risk groups: a low-risk group, including
patients without hypodiploidy and showing low
2-microglobulin (31 patients, median OS 44.4 months); a
group of patients with intermediate risk, showing either hypodiploidy
or a high 2-microglobulin level (42 patients, median OS
23.3 months); and a high-risk group, showing both hypodiploidy and high
2-microglobulin (37 patients, median OS 10.9 months;
P < .001). Identical results were obtained when patients
with normal karyotypes were included in the analysis (low risk, 55 patients, median OS 51.7 months; intermediate risk, 67 patients, median
OS 29.7 months; high risk, 37 patients, OS 10.9 months;
P < .001) (Figure 1H).
This large independent series including 138 complex myeloma karyotypes in 208 patients (66%) confirms our previous data.18 A 72-hour unstimulated culture allows a rather high detection rate of the abnormal clone. On the whole, conventional cytogenetics allows identification of 2 different groups based on the number of chromosomes in abnormal mitoses. A first group defined by the presence of a hyperdiploid clone with trisomies 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, and 19 associated or not with structural abnormalities; a second group characterized by a hypodiploid, pseudodiploid, or hypotetraploid karyotype always associated with structural abnormalities. The type and frequency of structural abnormalities found in this series are in agreement with previously published data,14,16,29-35 except for the total or partial loss of chromosome 8 not yet reported and found here in 42 cases (30%). This loss could be related to the possible localization in 8p21 of a putative tumor suppressor gene.36,37 In our series, 35 of 42 cases showed an 8p21 deleted region. This abnormality was not correlated with outcome. The median OS of the global series was 30.6 months, comparable to data in the literature.1,2 Patients with normal karyotypes displayed a survival advantage as compared with those with CCAs (Figure 1A). As others, we think that a normal karyotype should be considered as a detection failure of the abnormal clone.14,38-40 In these cases, the normal karyotype could reflect a low labeling index of malignant plasma cells, explaining the longer survival.6,41-43 Thus, the evaluation of the prognostic value of CCAs in MM patients should be based only on abnormal informative karyotypes. Conventional cytogenetic studies in MM are particularly efficient in
stage III MM patients (detection of the abnormal clone in 75%
patients), where this technique enables the study of the totality of
complex genetic changes present in mitoses. Conversely, interphase
fluorescence in situ hybridization techniques (IF) Using univariate analysis, we found that among the different chromosome abnormalities identified in this series, the chromosome number pattern was the most important prognostic factor: median OS was 33.8 months for hyperdiploid patients compared with 12.5 months for hypodiploid patients (P < .001) (Figure 1B). The prognostic value of numerical abnormalities, as it is correlated with the DNA content, has mainly been investigated using flow cytometry techniques: Patients with a hypodiploid DNA content had a poor response to chemotherapy and a very short survival,49-52 and a hyperdiploid content was associated with a better prognosis.53 In the same way, in conventional cytogenetic studies hypodiploidy was associated with a poor prognosis,12,17 and on multivariate analysis the absence of hypodiploidy was found to be the most favorable prognosis variable for OS.17 Finally, a study using IF showed that the presence of various trisomies was associated with prolonged survival.7 We did not find any significant difference in OS between patients with or without 11q13 abnormality (18.4 vs 25.5 months, respectively); this is in discordance with previous reports, because this abnormality was considered an important prognostic factor by some authors9-11,35 although not confirmed by others.12,17 However, this abnormality is often associated with the hypodiploid group in our study: 39.5% versus 7% in the hyperdiploid group. On the other hand, we confirm the reported11,18 negative impact of the presence of 14q32 abnormalities whatever the number of chromosomes (survival 17.8 vs 29.9 months respectively, P < .02). Our results regarding the prognostic value of chromosome 13q abnormalities are in accordance with those of previous reports.7-13 Taking into account, as in literature,10-13 the whole series including patients with normal karyotypes, we found a significant difference when we compared patients with 13qA with all other patients (P < .04). However, this study demonstrates that 13qA is not an independent prognostic factor: the comparison of OS of CCA patients with and without chromosome 13qA does not show any significant difference between the 2 populations (Figure 1E). In the same way, the presence of a chromosome 13qA does not modify OS in hyperdiploid patients or in hypodiploid patients. Conversely, in patients with 13qA, the chromosome number pattern conserves an important prognostic value (Figure 1F). Moreover, looking at the impact of hypodiploidy on the whole series, including patients with a normal karyotype, we found that this parameter was the best predictive indicator (P < .000 01). However, considering that normal karyotypes are representative of the tumor probably introduces a bias in the analysis. Upon multivariate analysis, we found that a hypodiploid karyotype was the most powerful prognostic factor, followed by treatment, whereas chromosome 13qA did not appear as an independent prognostic factor. These findings are different from previously published results in which 13qA was identified as the first independent adverse prognostic factor.8,10,13 Because we found that hypodiploidy was the most powerful prognostic factor and because the presence of a 13qA is significantly associated with hypodiploidy, testing the presence of a 13qA without introducing the chromosome number pattern probably represents an indirect way to test the adverse effect of this parameter. A very high-risk population was recently individualized by
several groups,9,13 characterized by the presence of both
13qA and a high On the basis of our results, the chromosome number pattern appears as the most powerful prognostic factor in newly diagnosed MM patients. The presence of a hypodiploid, pseudodiploid, or hypotetraploid karyotype represents a very strong adverse factor. Looking at the distribution of chromosomal abnormalities in this series, we observed that the hyperdiploid group was particularly homogeneous, identified by the presence of identical trisomies, while the hypodiploid group was more heterogeneous, showing an important variety of structural aberrations. Pseudodiploid karyotypes appeared more homogeneous: most of them (7 of 9) showed an 11;14 translocation. In conclusion, this independent series confirms our previous results,18 and a large study measuring DNA content of malignant plasma cells should be undertaken to evaluate the prognostic value of hypodiploidy in all patients with MM.
We thank Professor Hervé Tilly and Professor Albert Najman for critical reading of this manuscript and Sylvie Dumont and Catherine Arnould for their technical assistance.
A complete list of the members of GFCH who participated in this study is given in an Appendix at the end of this article.
Submitted November 30, 2000; accepted June 4, 2001.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734.
Reprints: N. V. Smadja, Laboratoire de Recherche en Cytogénétique Hématologique, Pavillon Moïana, Service Pr JL. Taillemite, Hôpital Saint Antoine, 184 rue du Faubourg St Antoine, 75571 Paris, France.
1. Boccadoro M, Pileri A. Diagnosis, prognosis, and standard treatment of multiple myeloma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 1997;11:111-131[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
2.
Kyle RA.
Why better prognostic factors for multiple myeloma are needed.
Blood.
1994;83:1713-1716
3.
Hallek M, Bergsagel PL, Anderson KC.
Multiple myeloma: increasing evidence for a multistep transformation process.
Blood.
1998;91:3-21
4.
Bataille R, Harousseau JL.
Multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med.
1997;336:1657-1664 5. Davies FE, Jack AS, Morgan GJ. The use of biological variables to predict outcome in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 1997;99:719-725[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
6.
Greipp PR, Lust JA, O'Fallon WM, Katzmann JA, Witzig TE, Kyle RA.
Plasma cell labeling index and
7.
Pérez-Simon JA, Garcia-Sanz R, Tabernero MD, et al.
Prognostic value of numerical chromosome aberrations in multiple myeloma: a FISH analysis of 15 different chromosomes.
Blood.
1998;91:3366-3371
8.
Zojer N, Königsberg R, Ackermann J, et al.
Deletion of 13q14 remains an independent adverse prognostic variable in multiple myeloma despite its frequent detection by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Blood.
2000;95:1925-1930
9.
Königsberg R, Zojer N, Ackermann J, et al.
Predictive role of interphase cytogenetics for survival of patients with multiple myeloma.
J Clin Oncol.
2000;18:804-812
10.
Tricot G, Barlogie B, Jagannath S, et al.
Poor prognosis in multiple myeloma is associated only with partial or complete deletions of chromosome 13 or abnormalities involving 11q and not with other karyotype abnormalities.
Blood.
1995;86:4250-4256
11.
Tricot G, Sawyer JR, Jagannath S, et al.
Unique role of cytogenetics in the prognosis of patients with myeloma receiving high-dose therapy and autotransplants.
J Clin Oncol.
1997;15:2659-2666 12. Seong C, Delasalle K, Hayes K, et al. Prognostic value of cytogenetics in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 1998;101:189-194[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
13.
Desikan R, Barlogie B, Sawyer J, et al.
Results of high-dose therapy for 1000 patients with multiple myeloma: durable complete remissions and superior survival in the absence of chromosome 13 abnormalities.
Blood.
2000;95:4008-4010 14. Weh HJ, Gutensohn K, Selbach J, et al. Karyotype in multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A:1269-1273[CrossRef]. 15. Dao DD, Sawyer JR, Epstein J, Hoover RG, Barlogie B, Tricot G. Deletion of the retinoblastoma gene in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 1994;8:1280-1284[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
16.
Laï JL, Zandecki M, Mary JY, et al.
Improved cytogenetics in multiple myeloma: a study of 151 patients including 117 patients at diagnosis.
Blood.
1995;85:2490-2497 17. Calasanz MJ, Cigudosa JC, Odero MD, et al. Hypodiploidy and 22q11 rearrangements at diagnosis are associated with poor prognosis in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 1997;98:418-425[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 18. Smadja NV, Fruchart C, Isnard F, et al. Chromosomal analysis in multiple myeloma: cytogenetic evidence of two different diseases. Leukemia. 1998;12:960-969[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 19. Durie BG, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma: correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer. 1975;36:842-854[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 20. Kyle RA, Greipp PR. Smoldering multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:1347-1349[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 21. Kyle RA, Lust JA. Monoclonal gammopathies of undetermined significance. Semin Hematol. 1989;26:176-200[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 22. Smadja NV, Louvet C, Isnard F, et al. Cytogenetic study in multiple myeloma at diagnosis: comparison of two techniques. Br J Haematol. 1995;90:619-624[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 23. Brigaudeau C, Trimoreau F, Gachard N, et al. Cytogenetic study of 30 patients with multiple myeloma: comparison of 3 and 6 day bone marrow cultures stimulated or not with cytokines by using a miniaturized karyotypic method. Br J Haematol. 1997;96:594-600[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 24. Smadja NV, and GFCH (Groupe Français de Cytogénétique Hématologique). Conventional cytogenetic in multiple myeloma: detection of karyotype abnormalities depends on technical and clinical factors [abstract]. Br J Haematol. 1998;102:P-1385. 25. Mitelman F, ed. An International System For Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature. Basel, Switzerland: S Karger; 1995. 26. Blade J, Samson D, Reece D, et al. Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Br J Haematol. 1998;102:1115-1123[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 27. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation for incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457-481[CrossRef]. 28. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B. 1972;187-220.
29.
Dewald GW, Kyle RA, Hicks GA, Greipp PR.
The clinical significance of cytogenetic studies in 100 patients with multiple myeloma, plasma cell leukemia, or amyloidosis.
Blood.
1985;66:380-390
30.
Gould J, Alexanian R, Goodacre A, Pathak S, Hecht B, Barlogie B.
Plasma cell karyotype in multiple myeloma.
Blood.
1988;71:453-456
31.
Taniwaki M, Nishida K, Takashima T, et al.
Nonrandom chromosomal rearrangements of 14q32.3 and 19p13.3 and preferential deletion of 1p in 21 patients with multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia.
Blood.
1994;84:2283-2290 32. Sawyer JR, Waldron JA, Jagannath S, Barlogie B. Cytogenetic findings in 200 patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1995;82:41-49[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 33. Calasanz MJ, Cigudosa JC, Odero MD, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of 280 patients with multiple myeloma and related disorders: primary breakpoints and clinical correlations. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1997;18:84-93[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 34. Laï JL, Michaux L, Dastugue N, et al. Cytogenetics in multiple myeloma: a multicenter study of 24 patients with t(11;14)(q13;q32) or its variant. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1998;104:133-138[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 35. Fonseca R, Witzig TE, Gertz MA, et al. Multiple myeloma and the translocation t(11;14)(q13;q32): a report on 13 cases. Br J Haematol. 1998;101:296-301[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 36. Lerebourg F, Olschwang S, Thuille B, et al. Deletion mapping of the tumor suppressor locus involved in colorectal cancer on chromosome band 8p21. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1999;25:147-153[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 37. Shimazaki C, Inaba T, Shimura K, et al. B-cell lymphoma associated with haemophagocytic syndrome: a clinical, immunological and cytogenetic study. Br J Haematol. 1999;104:672-679[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 38. Zandecki M, Bernardi F, Laï JL, et al. Image analysis in multiple myeloma at diagnosis: correlation with cytogenetic study. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1994;74:115-119[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 39. Zandecki M, Laï JL, Facon T. Multiple myeloma: almost all patients are cytogenetically abnormal. Br J Haematol. 1996;94:217-227[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
40.
Drach J, Schuster J, Nowotny H, et al.
Multiple myeloma: high incidence of chromosomal aneuploidy as detected by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Cancer Res.
1995;55:3854-3859 41. Joshua D, Petersen A, Brown R, Pope B, Snowdon L, Gibson J. The labelling index of primitive plasma cells determines the clinical behaviour of patients with myelomatosis. Br J Haematol. 1996;94:76-81[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 42. Rajkumar SV, Fonseca R, Dewald GW, et al. Cytogenetic abnormalities correlate with the plasma cell labeling index and extent of bone marrow involvement in myeloma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1999;113:73-77[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 43. Rajkumar SV, Fonseca R, Lacy MQ, et al. Abnormal cytogenetics predict poor survival after high-dose therapy and autologous blood cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999;24:497-503[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 44. Lee W, Han K, Drut RM, Harris CP, Meisner LF. Use of fluorescence in situ hybridization for retrospective detection of aneuploidy in Multiple Myeloma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1993;7:137-143[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 45. Dubinsky R, Amiel A, Manor Y, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for retrospective detection of trisomies 3 and 7 in multiple myeloma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1995;83:115-118[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 46. Flactif M, Zandecki M, Laï JL, et al. Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) as a powerful tool for the detection of aneuploidy in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 1995;9:2109-2114[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 47. Tabernero D, San Miguel JF, Garcia-Sanz R, et al. Incidence of chromosome numerical changes in multiple myeloma: fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis using 15 chromosome-specific probes. Am J Pathol. 1996;149:153-161[Abstract]. 48. Kearney L. The impact of the new FISH technologies on the cytogenetics of haematological malignancies. Br J Haematol. 1999;104:648-658[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 49. Smith L, Barlogie B, Alexanian R. Biclonal and hypodiploid multiple myeloma. Am J Med. 1986;80:841-843[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
50.
Latreille J, Barlogie B, Dosik G, Johnston DA, Drewinko B, Alexanian R.
Cellular DNA content as a marker of human multiple myeloma.
Blood.
1980;55:403-408
51.
Barlogie B, Alexanian R, Dixon D, Smith L, Smallwood L, Delassalle K.
Prognostic implications of tumor cell DNA and RNA content in multiple myeloma.
Blood.
1985;66:338-341 52. Morgan RJ, Gonchoroff NJ, Katzmann JA, Witzig TE, Kyle RA, Greipp PR. Detection of hypodiploidy using multi-parameter flow cytometric analysis: a prognostic indicator in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 1989;30:195-200[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 53. Garcia-Sanz R, Orfao A, Gonzalez M, et al. Prognostic implications of DNA aneuploidy in 156 untreated multiple myeloma patients. Br J Haematol. 1995;90:106-112[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
Participants of GFCH are listed with the locations of centers and the number of cases in parentheses. N. Smadja, M. J. Grange, A. Najman, F. Isnard, J. L. Dutel, B. Varet, C. Belanger, J. P. Vernant, V. Leblond, M. Amar, N. Atkhen, J. P. Fermand, M. Janvier (Paris St Antoine 1; 85); C. Brigaudeau, V. Praloran, F. Trimoreau, P. Turlure, D. Bordessoule, A. Jaccard, M. Touati, L. Remenieras (Limoges; 30); D. Leroux, M. Callanan, B. Pégourié-Bandelier, F. Garban, C. Dascalescu, J. J. Sotto (Grenoble; 21); L. Michaux, J. M. Libouton, C. H. Verellen-Dumoulin, J. M. Scheiff, V. Deneys, A. Ferrant (Brussels; 13); F. Mugneret, B. Favre, I. Luquet, F. Girodon, M. Maynadie, D. Caillot (Dijon; 11); C. Bastard, M. Monconduit, C. Fruchart, V. Izydorczyk (Rouen; 8); P. Talmant (Nantes; 8); C. Terre, S. Castaigne, J. N. Bastie, F. Suzan, I. Garcia (Versailles; 7); C. Barin, L. Benbouker, P. Colombat, A. Petit, J. L. Bremond (Tours; 7); E. Jeandidier, P. Hénon, G. Jung (Mulhouse; 5); A. Daudignon, J. P. Pollet (Valenciennes; 4); M. Lafage-Pochitaloff, M. J. Mozziconacci, M. Merlin, C. Arnoulet, D. Sainty, D. Blaise (Marseille; 3); J. Van Den Akker, M. Divine, J. L. Taillemite (Paris St Antoine 2; 2); J. Lespinasse, M. F. Pedron (Chambery; 2); and C. Charin, I. Tigaud (Lyon; 1); F. Desangles, C. Fouet (Paris Val de grace; 1).
© 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
  S. K. Kumar, J. R. Mikhael, F. K. Buadi, D. Dingli, A. Dispenzieri, R. Fonseca, M. A. Gertz, P. R. Greipp, S. R. Hayman, R. A. Kyle, et al. Management of Newly Diagnosed Symptomatic Multiple Myeloma: updated Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) Consensus Guidelines Mayo Clin. Proc., December 1, 2009; 84(12): 1095 - 1110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Avet-Loiseau, C. Li, F. Magrangeas, W. Gouraud, C. Charbonnel, J.-L. Harousseau, M. Attal, G. Marit, C. Mathiot, T. Facon, et al. Prognostic Significance of Copy-Number Alterations in Multiple Myeloma J. Clin. Oncol., September 20, 2009; 27(27): 4585 - 4590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Bollati, S. Fabris, V. Pegoraro, D. Ronchetti, L. Mosca, G. L. Deliliers, V. Motta, P. A. Bertazzi, A. Baccarelli, and A. Neri Differential repetitive DNA methylation in multiple myeloma molecular subgroups Carcinogenesis, August 1, 2009; 30(8): 1330 - 1335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. H. Bryce, R. P. Ketterling, M. A. Gertz, M. Lacy, R. A. Knudson, S. Zeldenrust, S. Kumar, S. Hayman, F. Buadi, R. A. Kyle, et al. Translocation t(11;14) and survival of patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis Haematologica, March 1, 2009; 94(3): 380 - 386. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Kumar, M. A. Kharfan-Dabaja, A. Glasmacher, and B. Djulbegovic Tandem Versus Single Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis J Natl Cancer Inst, January 21, 2009; 101(2): 100 - 106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Suh, T. S. Park, J. S. Kim, J. Song, J. Kim, J.-H. Yoo, and J. R. Choi Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia with der(9)t(1;9)(q11;q34) as a Sole Abnormality Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., January 1, 2009; 39(3): 307 - 312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Brousseau, X. Leleu, J. Gerard, T. Gastinne, A. Godon, F. Genevieve, M. Dib, J.-L. Lai, T. Facon, M. Zandecki, et al. Hyperdiploidy Is a Common Finding in Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance and Monosomy 13 Is Restricted to These Hyperdiploid Patients Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2007; 13(20): 6026 - 6031. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Avet-Loiseau, M. Attal, P. Moreau, C. Charbonnel, F. Garban, C. Hulin, S. Leyvraz, M. Michallet, I. Yakoub-Agha, L. Garderet, et al. Genetic abnormalities and survival in multiple myeloma: the experience of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome Blood, April 15, 2007; 109(8): 3489 - 3495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. J. Chng, S. Kumar, S. VanWier, G. Ahmann, T. Price-Troska, K. Henderson, T.-H. Chung, S. Kim, G. Mulligan, B. Bryant, et al. Molecular Dissection of Hyperdiploid Multiple Myeloma by Gene Expression Profiling Cancer Res., April 1, 2007; 67(7): 2982 - 2989. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Fonseca and A. K. Stewart Targeted therapeutics for multiple myeloma: The arrival of a risk-stratified approach Mol. Cancer Ther., March 1, 2007; 6(3): 802 - 810. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Dispenzieri, S. V. Rajkumar, M. A. Gertz, M. Q. Lacy, R. A. Kyle, P. R. Greipp, T. E. Witzig, J. A. Lust, S. J. Russell, S. R. Hayman, et al. Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Based on Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART): Consensus Statement Mayo Clin. Proc., March 1, 2007; 82(3): 323 - 341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Agnelli, S. Bicciato, S. Fabris, L. Baldini, F. Morabito, D. Intini, D. Verdelli, A. Callegaro, F. Bertoni, G. Lambertenghi-Deliliers, et al. Integrative genomic analysis reveals distinct transcriptional and genetic features associated with chromosome 13 deletion in multiple myeloma Haematologica, January 1, 2007; 92(1): 56 - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Zhan, Y. Huang, S. Colla, J. P. Stewart, I. Hanamura, S. Gupta, J. Epstein, S. Yaccoby, J. Sawyer, B. Burington, et al. The molecular classification of multiple myeloma Blood, September 15, 2006; 108(6): 2020 - 2028. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. A. Walker, P. E. Leone, M. W. Jenner, C. Li, D. Gonzalez, D. C. Johnson, F. M. Ross, F. E. Davies, and G. J. Morgan Integration of global SNP-based mapping and expression arrays reveals key regions, mechanisms, and genes important in the pathogenesis of multiple myeloma Blood, September 1, 2006; 108(5): 1733 - 1743. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Hanamura, J. P. Stewart, Y. Huang, F. Zhan, M. Santra, J. R. Sawyer, K. Hollmig, M. Zangarri, M. Pineda-Roman, F. van Rhee, et al. Frequent gain of chromosome band 1q21 in plasma-cell dyscrasias detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization: incidence increases from MGUS to relapsed myeloma and is related to prognosis and disease progression following tandem stem-cell transplantation Blood, September 1, 2006; 108(5): 1724 - 1732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. J. Chng, S. A. Van Wier, G. J. Ahmann, J. M. Winkler, S. M. Jalal, P. L. Bergsagel, M. Chesi, M. C. Trendle, M. M. Oken, E. Blood, et al. A validated FISH trisomy index demonstrates the hyperdiploid and nonhyperdiploid dichotomy in MGUS Blood, September 15, 2005; 106(6): 2156 - 2161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. L. Bergsagel and W. M. Kuehl Molecular Pathogenesis and a Consequent Classification of Multiple Myeloma J. Clin. Oncol., September 10, 2005; 23(26): 6333 - 6338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S.-Y. Huang, M. Yao, J.-L. Tang, W. Tsay, F.-Y. Lee, M.-C. Liu, C.-H. Wang, Y.-C. Chen, M.-C. Shen, and H.-F. Tien Clinical significance of cytogenetics and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in Taiwan Ann. Onc., September 1, 2005; 16(9): 1530 - 1538. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. M. Kuehl and P. L. Bergsagel Early Genetic Events Provide the Basis for a Clinical Classification of Multiple Myeloma Hematology, January 1, 2005; 2005(1): 346 - 352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. C. Gutierrez, J. L. Garcia, J. M. Hernandez, E. Lumbreras, M. Castellanos, A. Rasillo, G. Mateo, J. M. Hernandez, S. Perez, A. Orfao, et al. Prognostic and biologic significance of chromosomal imbalances assessed by comparative genomic hybridization in multiple myeloma Blood, November 1, 2004; 104(9): 2661 - 2666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Hideshima, P. L. Bergsagel, W. M. Kuehl, and K. C. Anderson Advances in biology of multiple myeloma: clinical applications Blood, August 1, 2004; 104(3): 607 - 618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Fonseca, B. Barlogie, R. Bataille, C. Bastard, P. L. Bergsagel, M. Chesi, F. E. Davies, J. Drach, P. R. Greipp, I. R. Kirsch, et al. Genetics and Cytogenetics of Multiple Myeloma: A Workshop Report Cancer Res., February 15, 2004; 64(4): 1546 - 1558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Barlogie, J. Shaughnessy, G. Tricot, J. Jacobson, M. Zangari, E. Anaissie, R. Walker, and J. Crowley Treatment of multiple myeloma Blood, January 1, 2004; 103(1): 20 - 32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Fonseca, C. S. Debes-Marun, E. B. Picken, G. W. Dewald, S. C. Bryant, J. M. Winkler, E. Blood, M. M. Oken, R. Santana-Davila, N. Gonzalez-Paz, et al. The recurrent IgH translocations are highly associated with nonhyperdiploid variant multiple myeloma Blood, October 1, 2003; 102(7): 2562 - 2567. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Shaughnessy, J. Jacobson, J. Sawyer, J. McCoy, A. Fassas, F. Zhan, K. Bumm, J. Epstein, E. Anaissie, S. Jagannath, et al. Continuous absence of metaphase-defined cytogenetic abnormalities, especially of chromosome 13 and hypodiploidy, ensures long-term survival in multiple myeloma treated with Total Therapy I: interpretation in the context of global gene expression Blood, May 15, 2003; 101(10): 3849 - 3856. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. L. Bergsagel Prognostic Factors in Multiple Myeloma: It's in the Genes Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2003; 9(2): 533 - 534. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Barille-Nion, B. Barlogie, R. Bataille, P. L. Bergsagel, J. Epstein, R. G. Fenton, J. Jacobson, W. M. Kuehl, J. Shaughnessy, and G. Tricot Advances in Biology and Therapy of Multiple Myeloma Hematology, January 1, 2003; 2003(1): 248 - 278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G Pratt Molecular aspects of multiple myeloma Mol. Pathol., October 1, 2002; 55(5): 273 - 283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Moreau, T. Facon, X. Leleu, N. Morineau, P. Huyghe, J.-L. Harousseau, R. Bataille, and H. Avet-Loiseau Recurrent 14q32 translocations determine the prognosis of multiple myeloma, especially in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy Blood, August 13, 2002; 100(5): 1579 - 1583. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Anderson, J. D. Shaughnessy Jr., B. Barlogie, J.-L. Harousseau, and G. D. Roodman Multiple Myeloma Hematology, January 1, 2002; 2002(1): 214 - 240. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Copyright © 2001 by American Society of Hematology Online ISSN: 1528-0020 | |||||||||
Top
Abstract
Introduction
conventional chemotherapy: hyperdiploid group, 37 patients, median OS 28.3 months; hypodiploid group, 29 patients, median OS 9.2, P < .001 (Figure