Clinical, Laboratory, Cytometry And Cytogenetic Characteristics Of A Cohort Of Patients Diagnosed For The First Time With Multiple Myeloma In A Third-Level Hospital In Medellín, Colombia, Survival From A 8 Years Follow-Up
Background: Multiple myeloma is the second most common hematologic malignancy after lymphomas. Few studies have characterized significant and full variables at the time of diagnosis of multiple myeloma in Colombia, and there is no data evaluating patients for follow-up.
Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study is presented, describing the clinical, laboratory, cytometric, and cytogenetic characteristics of patients with a de novo diagnosis of multiple myeloma evaluated in a reference hematology laboratory attached to a highly complex hospital in Medellín, Colombia. We follow them until death as a main outcome.
Results: A total of 170 patients with a de novo diagnosis of multiple myeloma were collected from a database of 421 patients with different monoclonal gammopathies. Mainly, it was found that 50.8% of the patients were men; the median age was 62 years; 65.4% had secretion of the IgG kappa; half of the patients presented International Staging System (ISS) Stage III. The β2 macroglobulin >4 mg/L and creatinine >2 mg/dl were the main variables significantly associated with survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.4 and 2, respectively). Eighty-five percent of patients presented with bone lytic lesion involvement and less than 3% with extramedullary involvement. Conventional Banding Karyotype (CBK) genetic risk assessment yield was poor, compared with although scarce data regarding Cytogenetic risk assessment based on Fluorescence in-situ Hybridization (FISH).
Conclusion: The clinical profile of the patients with a de novo diagnosis of multiple myeloma in our cohort is similar to that described in international studies. The diagnosis of multiple myeloma was documented at younger ages, with more advanced stages, anemia, and a high percentage of bone disease. ISS provides an excellent tool for prognosis purposes. Cytogenetic risk assessment based on FISH should be done for all MM patients from therapeutic implications. We need standardized protocols for bone marrow sample manipulation and processing in order to guarantee good correlation for plasma cells count methods.
2. Kyle R, Gertz M, Witzig T, et al. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78(1):21–33.
3. Palumbo A, Rajkumar S, San Miguel J, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus statement for the management, treatment, and supportive care of patients with myeloma not eligible for standard autologous stem-cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(6):587–600.
4. Segovia J, Duarte M, Restrepo J, et al. Mieloma múltiple en el Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá (1983-2006). Acta Med Colomb. 2008; 33(4): 276-281.
5. Hungria V, Maiolino A, Martinez G, et al. Confirmation of the utility of the International Staging System and identification of a unique pattern of disease in Brazilian patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2008;93(5):791–2.
6. Hungria V, Maiolino A, Martinez G, et al. Observational study of multiple myeloma in Latin America. Ann Hematol. 2017;96(1):65–72.
7. Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):e328–46.
8. Durie B, Salmon S. 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(3):842-54.
9. Greipp P, Miguel J, Dune B, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(15):3412–20.
10. Rossi D, Fangazio M, De Paoli L, et al. Beta-2-microglobulin is an independent predictor of progression in asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Cancer. 2010;116(9):2188–200.
11. Rasch S, Lund T, Asmussen J, et al. Multiple myeloma associated bone disease. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(8):2113.
12. Tosi P. Diagnosis and treatment of bone disease in multiple myeloma: spotlight on spinal involvement. Scientifica (Cairo). 2013;2013:104546.
13. Croucher PI, Apperley JF. Bone disease in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 1998;103(4):902-10.
14. Nair B, Waheed S, Szymonifka J, et al. Immunoglobulin isotypes in multiple myeloma: Laboratory correlates and prognostic implications in total therapy protocols. Br J Haematol. 2009;145(1):134–7.
15. Krejci M, Buchler T, Hajek R, et al. Prognostic factors for survival after autologous transplantation: A single centre experience in 133 multiple myeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2005;35(2):159–64.
16. Remes K, Anttila P, Silvennoinen R, et al. Real-world treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma: Multicenter registry results from Finland 2009-2013. PLoS One. 2018;13(12): e0208507.
17. Weide R, Feiten S, Chakupurakal G, et al. Reality of Care for Patients with Multiple Myeloma 1995-2016. New Drugs in Routine Care Lead to Improved Survival. Blood. 2017; 130(Suppl 1): 5628.
18. Hameed A, Ali J, Munawar K, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma: Data from a developing country. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2018;32:1.
19. Cowan AJ, Allen C, Barac A, et al. Global burden of multiple myeloma: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(9):1221–1227.
20. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5–29.
|Issue||Vol 17, No 1 (2023)|
|Multiple myeloma; Cohort study; Survival; Colombia|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|