Development and validation of prognostic implications of chromosome abnormalities algorithm for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

2Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) evaluation is essential for initial risk stratification in multiple myeloma (MM). The presence of specific cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) confers a heterogeneity impact on prognosis. However, the cutoff values among different centers are not uniform. Therefore, we conduct this study to better predict the prognosis of newly diagnosed MM patients based on FISH results. The Kaps method was used to calculate the chromosomal abnormal cutoff values. A total of 533 participants were included in the study. The best cutoff value of overall survival were as follows: 17p – 20.1%, 13q – 85%, 1q21+ 39%, t(11;14) 55.5%, t(14;16) 87%, and t(4;14) 53.5%. The survival analysis showed that 17p– and 1q21+ were the independent factors affecting both OS and progress free survival (PFS) among CA. The analysis based on the cutoff value obtained by Kaps suggested that 13q–, t(14;16), 17p–, and 1q21+ were independent factors affecting OS among CA; t(14;16), 17p–, and 1q21+ were independent factors affecting PFS among CA. The prognostic model was constructed by the Kaps method with the Harrell concordance index (c-index) at 0.719 (95% CI, 0.683–0.756; corrected 0.707), which was higher than that calculated by the European Myeloma Network criteria (0.714; 95% CI, 0.678–0.751; corrected 0.696). In conclusion, chromosomal abnormalities in different proportions and combinations can affect the prognosis of MM patients. Therefore, effective criteria should be formulated to evaluate the prognosis of MM patients better.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Luo, T., Qiang, W., Lu, J., He, H., Liu, J., Li, L., … Du, J. (2021). Development and validation of prognostic implications of chromosome abnormalities algorithm for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood Science, 3(3), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1097/BS9.0000000000000077

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free