Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Myeloma

Combining fluorescent in situ hybridization data with ISS staging improves risk assessment in myeloma: an International Myeloma Working Group collaborative project

Leukemia volume 27, pages 711–717 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The combination of serum β2-microglobulin and albumin levels has been shown to be highly prognostic in myeloma as the International Staging System (ISS). The aim of this study was to assess the independent contributions of ISS stage and cytogenetic abnormalities in predicting outcomes. A retrospective analysis of international studies looking at both ISS and cytogenetic abnormalities was performed in order to assess the potential role of combining ISS stage and cytogenetics to predict survival. This international effort used the International Myeloma Working Group database of 12 137 patients treated worldwide for myeloma at diagnosis, of whom 2309 had cytogenetic studies and 5387 had analyses by fluorescent in situ hybridization (iFISH). Comprehensive analyses used 2642 patients with sufficient iFISH data available. Using the comprehensive iFISH data, combining both t(4;14) and deletion (17p), along with ISS stage, significantly improved the prognostic assessment in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival. The additional impact of patient age and use of high-dose therapy was also demonstrated. In conclusion, the combination of iFISH data with ISS staging significantly improves risk assessment in myeloma.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Durie BG, Salmon SE, Moon TE . Pretreatment tumor mass, cell kinetics, and prognosis in multiple myeloma. Blood 1980; 55: 364–372.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bataille R, Durie BG, Grenier J, Sany J . Prognostic factors and staging in multiple myeloma: a reappraisal. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 80–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bataille R, Durie BG, Grenier J . Serum beta2 microglobulin and survival duration in multiple myeloma: a simple reliable marker for staging. Br J Haematol 1983; 55: 439–447.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bataille R, Boccadoro M, Klein B, Durie B, Pileri A . C-reactive protein and beta-2 microglobulin produce a simple and powerful myeloma staging system. Blood 1992; 80: 733–737.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bataille R, Jourdan M, Zhang XG, Klein B . Serum levels of interleukin 6, a potent myeloma cell growth factor, as a reflect of disease severity in plasma cell dyscrasias. J Clin Invest 1989; 84: 2008–2011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Greipp PR, Leong T, Bennett JM, Gaillard JP, Klein B, Stewart JA et al. Plasmablastic morphology—an independent prognostic factor with clinical and laboratory correlates: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) myeloma trial E9486 report by the ECOG Myeloma Laboratory Group. Blood 1998; 91: 2501–2507.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, Crowley JJ, Barlogie B, Bladé J et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 3412–3420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zojer N, Königsberg R, Ackermann J, Fritz E, Dallinger S, Krömer E 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Facon T, Avet-Loiseau H, Guillerm G, Moreau P, Geneviève F, Zandecki M et al. Chromosome 13 abnormalities identified by FISH analysis and serum beta2-microglobulin produce a powerful myeloma staging system for patients receiving high-dose therapy. Blood 2001; 97: 1566–1571.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Moreau P, Facon T, Leleu X, Morineau N, Huyghe P, Harousseau JL et al. Recurrent 14q32 translocations determine the prognosis of multiple myeloma, especially in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy. Blood 2002; 100: 1579–1583.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fonseca R, Blood E, Rue M, Harrington D, Oken MM, Kyle RA et al. Clinical and biologic implications of recurrent genomic aberrations in myeloma. Blood 2003; 101: 4569–4575.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jaksic W, Trudel S, Chang H, Trieu Y, Qi X, Mikhael J et al. Clinical outcomes in t(4;14) multiple myeloma: a chemotherapy-sensitive disease characterized by rapid relapse and alkylating agent resistance. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7069–7073.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gertz MA, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, Greipp PR, Litzow MR, Henderson KJ et al. Clinical implications of t(11;14)(q13;q32), t(4;14)(p16.3;q32), and −17p13 in myeloma patients treated with high-dose therapy. Blood 2005; 106: 2837–2840.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chng WJ, Kuehl WM, Bergsagel PL, Fonseca R . Translocation t(4;14) retains prognostic significance even in the setting of high-risk molecular signature. Leukemia 2008; 22: 459–461.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hanamura I, Stewart JP, Huang Y, Zhan F, Santra M, Sawyer JR 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 2006; 108: 1724–1732.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaplan EL, Meier P . Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53: 457–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mantel N . Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 163–170.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. LeBlanc M, Crowley J . Survival trees by goodness of split. JASA 1993; 88: 457–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Avet-Loiseau H, Li C, Magrangeas F, Gouraud W, Charbonnel C, Harousseau JL et al. Prognostic significance of copy-number alterations in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4585–4590.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Moreau P, Charbonnel C, Garban F, Hulin C et al. Genetic abnormalities and survival in multiple myeloma: the experience of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. Blood 2007; 109: 3489–3495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Neben K, Jauch A, Bertsch U, Heiss C, Hielscher T, Seckinger A et al. Combining information regarding chromosomal aberrations t(4;14) and del(17p13) with the International Staging System classification allows stratification of myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Haematologica 2010; 95: 1150–1157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kapoor P, Fonseca R, Rajkumar SV, Sinha S, Gertz MA, Stewart AK et al. Evidence for cytogenetic and fluorescence in situ hybridization risk stratification of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the era of novel therapie. Mayo Clin Proc 2010; 85: 532–537.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. San Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, Dimopoulos MA, Shpilberg O, Kropff M et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 906–917.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barlogie B, Anaissie E, van Rhee F, Haessler J, Hollmig K, Pineda-Roman M et al. Incorporating bortezomib into upfront treatment for multiple myeloma: early results of total therapy 3. Br J Haematol 2007; 138: 176–185.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Avet-Loiseau H, Leleu X, Roussel M, Moreau P, Guerin-Charbonnel C, Caillot D et al. Bortezomib plus dexamethasone induction improves outcome of patients with t(4;14) myeloma but not outcome of patients with del(17p). J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4630–4634.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cavo M, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, Petrucci MT, Pantani L, Galli M et al. Bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone compared with thalidomide and dexamethasone as induction before, and consolidation after, double autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results from a randomized phase 3 study. Lancet 2010; 376: 2075–2085.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shaughnessy JD, Zhan F, Burington BE, Huang Y, Colla S, Hanamura I et al. A validated gene expression model of high-risk multiple myeloma is defined by deregulated expression of genes mapping to chromosome 1. Blood 2007; 109: 2276–2284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Decaux O, Lodé L, Magrangeas F, Charbonnel C, Gouraud W, Jézéquel P et al. Prediction of survival in multiple myeloma based on gene expression profiles reveals cell cycle and chromosomal instability signatures in high-risk patients and hyperdiploid signatures in low-risk patients: a study of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 4798–4805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Campion L, Caillot D, Hulin C, Marit G et al. Long-term analysis of the IFM 99 trials for myeloma: cytogenetic abnormalities [t(4;14), del(17p), 1q gains] play a major role in defining long-term survival. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 1949–1952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unité de Génomique du Myélome, Laboratoire UGM, University Hospital, CHU Rangueil, Toulouse, France

    H Avet-Loiseau

  2. Southwest Cooperative Oncology Group, Cedars-Sinai Samuel Oschin Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    B G M Durie

  3. Universita di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    M Cavo

  4. Hematology Department, University Hospital, Toulouse, France

    M Attal

  5. Cytogenetic Laboratory, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

    N Gutierrez

  6. Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA, USA

    J Haessler & J Crowley

  7. Hematology Department, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    H Goldschmidt

  8. Hematology Department, Brno University, Brno, Czech Republic

    R Hajek

  9. Hematology Department, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea

    J H Lee

  10. Hematology Department, UniversitatKlinikum Charite, Berlin, Germany

    O Sezer

  11. Southwest Cooperative Oncology Group, MIRT UAMS, Little Rock, AR, USA

    B Barlogie

  12. Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    R Fonseca

  13. Laboratory of Cytogenetics, ‘Seràgnoli’ Institute of Hematology, Bologna University School of Medicine, Bologna, Italy

    N Testoni

  14. LLR UKMF Cytogenetic Database, University of Southampton, Salisbury, UK

    F Ross

  15. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    S V Rajkumar

  16. Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    P Sonneveld

  17. Grupo Español di Mieloma, Hospital Universitario, Madrid, Spain

    J Lahuerta

  18. Hematology Department, University Hospital, Center for Research in Myeloma, INSERM U892, Nantes, France

    P Moreau

  19. Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK

    G Morgan

Authors
  1. H Avet-Loiseau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B G M Durie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M Cavo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M Attal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N Gutierrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J Haessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H Goldschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R Hajek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. J H Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. O Sezer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. B Barlogie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. J Crowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. R Fonseca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. N Testoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. F Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. S V Rajkumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. P Sonneveld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. J Lahuerta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. P Moreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. G Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H Avet-Loiseau.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Avet-Loiseau, H., Durie, B., Cavo, M. et al. Combining fluorescent in situ hybridization data with ISS staging improves risk assessment in myeloma: an International Myeloma Working Group collaborative project. Leukemia 27, 711–717 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2012.282

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2012.282

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links