Concepts of Double Hit and Triple Hit Disease in Multiple Myeloma, Entity and Prognostic Significance.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 04 2020
06 04 2020
Historique:
received:
02
11
2019
accepted:
18
03
2020
entrez:
7
4
2020
pubmed:
7
4
2020
medline:
1
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Risk assessment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients (NDMM) is the first and the most crucial determinant of treatment. With the utilization of FISH analysis as a part of routine practice, high risk Multiple Myeloma (MM) is defined as having at least one of the mutations related with poor prognosis including; t(4;14) t(14;16), t(14;20), del 17p, p53 mutation, gain 1q and del 1p. M-Smart MM risk stratification guideline by Mayo Clinic has proposed a concept similar to high grade lymphomas. Having two of the high risk genetic abnormalities were defined as double hit MM and having any three as triple hit MM. Based on these definitions which may bring a much more clinically relatable understanding in MM prognosis, we aimed to assess our database regarding these two concepts and their probable significance in terms of outcome and prognosis. We retrospectively evaluated 159 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients and their clinical course. Among these patients; twenty-four patients have one high risk determinant and also seven and two patients were classified as double hit MM and triple hit MM respectively. Overall survival (OS) of the patients with double hit MM was 6 months, 32.0 months for patients with single high risk abnormality and 57.0 months for patients with no high risk abnormality. Univariate analysis showed that Double Hit and Triple Hit MM is a predictive of low OS. Hazard Ratio of patients with one high risk abnormality was 1.42, double-hit MM patients was 5.55, and triple-hit MM patients was 7.3. Despite the development of novel drugs and their effects of prolonging survival, the treatment has not been individualized. Understanding the biology of each patient as a unique process will be the success of the treatment. As it is known that some MM patients harbor high risk genetic abnormalities according to FISH analysis, we can continue the argument that some patients bring an even higher risk and that can be defined as double or triple hit MM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32249811
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62885-0
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-62885-0
pmc: PMC7136246
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5991Références
Rajkumar, S. V. Multiple myeloma: 2018 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am. J. Hematol. 93, 981–1114, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25117 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/ajh.25117
pmcid: 6223128
Krishnan, A. How to Think About Risk in Myeloma. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 16(Suppl), S135–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2016.02.015 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2016.02.015
pubmed: 27521310
mSMART Risk Stratification of Newly Diagnosed Myeloma, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b44f08ac258b493a25098a3/t/5b802d8270a6adbc6a79a678/1535126914646/Risk+Strat+3.0rev_svr.pdf .
Byun, J. M. et al. Distinct predictive impact of FISH abnormality in proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents response: redefining high-risk multiple myeloma in Asian patients. Cancer Med. 7, 831–841, https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1340 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/cam4.1340
pubmed: 29380550
pmcid: 5852362
Gundesen, M. T., Lund, T., Moeller, H. E. H. & Abildgaard, N. Plasma Cell Leukemia: Definition, Presentation, and Treatment. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 21, 8–8, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-019-0754-x (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s11912-019-0754-x
pubmed: 30689121
pmcid: 6349791
Russell, S. J. & Rajkumar, S. V. Multiple myeloma and the road to personalised medicine. Lancet Oncol. 12, 617–619, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70143-7 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70143-7
pubmed: 21664869
Chng, W. J. et al. IMWG consensus on risk stratification in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 28, 269–277, https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2013.247 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.247
pubmed: 23974982
Stevens-Kroef, M. et al. High detection rate of clinically relevant genomic abnormalities in plasma cells enriched from patients with multiple myeloma. Genes. Chromosomes Cancer 51, 997–1006, https://doi.org/10.1002/gcc.21982 (2012).
doi: 10.1002/gcc.21982
pubmed: 22833442
Kishimoto, R. K. et al. Validation of interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) for multiple myeloma using CD138 positive cells. Rev. Bras. Hematol. Hemoter. 38, 113–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjhh.2016.01.005 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.bjhh.2016.01.005
pubmed: 27208569
pmcid: 4877610
Ross, F. M. et al. Report from the European Myeloma Network on interphase FISH in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Haematologica 97, 1272–1277, https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2011.056176 (2012).
doi: 10.3324/haematol.2011.056176
pubmed: 22371180
pmcid: 3409827
Bolli, N. et al. Heterogeneity of genomic evolution and mutational profiles in multiple myeloma. Nat. Commun. 5, 2997, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3997 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/ncomms3997
pubmed: 24429703
pmcid: 3905727
Kumar, S. K. et al. Multiple myeloma. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 3, 17046, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2017.46 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.46
pubmed: 28726797
Joseph, N. S., Gentili, S., Kaufman, J. L., Lonial, S. & Nooka, A. K. High-risk Multiple Myeloma: Definition and Management. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 17S, S80–S87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2017.02.018 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2017.02.018
pubmed: 28760306
Binder, M. et al. Prognostic implications of abnormalities of chromosome 13 and the presence of multiple cytogenetic high-risk abnormalities in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 7, e600, https://doi.org/10.1038/bcj.2017.83 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/bcj.2017.83
pubmed: 28862698
pmcid: 5709752
Walker, B. A. et al. A high-risk, Double-Hit, group of newly diagnosed myeloma identified by genomic analysis. Leukemia 33, 159–170, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-018-0196-8 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0196-8
pubmed: 29967379
Goldsmith, S. R. et al. Next Generation Sequencing-based Validation of the Revised International Staging System for Multiple Myeloma: An Analysis of the MMRF CoMMpass Study. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2019.01.003 (2019).
Binder, M. et al. Substratification of patients with newly diagnosed standard-risk multiple myeloma. Br. J. Haematol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.15800 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/bjh.15800
pubmed: 30768679
Shah, V. et al. Prediction of outcome in newly diagnosed myeloma: a meta-analysis of the molecular profiles of 1905 trial patients. Leukemia 32, 102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2017.179 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/leu.2017.179
pubmed: 28584253
Ji, M., Jang, S., Lee, J. H. & Seo, E. J. Double-hit myeloma with IGH/MYC and IGH/CCND1 translocations. Ann. Hematol. 92, 1129–1131, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-012-1668-y (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s00277-012-1668-y
pubmed: 23307601
Walker, B. A. et al. Intraclonal heterogeneity is a critical early event in the development of myeloma and precedes the development of clinical symptoms. Leukemia 28, 384–390, https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2013.199 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.199
pubmed: 23817176