Advertisement

Pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT combined with quantification of clonal circulating plasma cells as a potential risk model in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

  • Yoshiaki AbeEmail author
  • Kentaro Narita
  • Hiroki Kobayashi
  • Akihiro Kitadate
  • Daisuke Miura
  • Masami Takeuchi
  • Eri O’uchi
  • Toshihiro O’uchi
  • Kosei Matsue
Original Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Both 18F-FDG PET/CT and clonal circulating plasma cell (CPC) quantification are emerging tools for multiple myeloma (MM) prognostication that have been validated in recent studies. This study investigated the value of PET/CT coupled with CPC quantification for MM prognostication that may contribute to future risk-adapted treatment.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed the prognostic relevance of a combination of pretreatment PET/CT findings and CPC levels in 163 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed, symptomatic MM receiving novel agents during induction therapies.

Results

High-risk PET/CT findings and elevated CPC levels were defined by the presence of >3 focal lesions with or without extramedullary disease and CPCs ≥0.10% of the total mononuclear cells evaluated, respectively. Subsequently, patients were divided into three groups: PET-CPC stage I included patients with no high-risk PET/CT findings and low CPC levels; stage III included patients with high-risk PET/CT findings and high CPC levels; and stage II included the remaining patients. The three groups of patients differed significantly in terms of both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (median PFS: not reached [NR] and 36.4 and 15.9 months, and median OS: NR, NR, and 40.4 months for stages I, II, and III, respectively; P < 0.001 for both PFS and OS). This system discriminated both PFS and OS even among younger (age < 75 years) or older (≥ 75 years) patients, patients with Revised International Staging System stage II or III, and patients with or without high-risk cytogenetic characteristics. In the multivariate analysis, the PET-CPC staging system remained prognostic for both PFS and OS.

Conclusions

The PET-CPC staging system predicted survival outcomes independently of established risk factors in patients with newly diagnosed MM. Pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT assessment combined with CPC quantification may improve the prognostication of MM and facilitate the development of novel risk-adapted approaches for MM.

Keywords

Circulating plasma cell Focal lesion Multiple myeloma Positron emission tomography/computed tomography Prognosis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Department of Radiology, Kameda Medical Centre, Kamogawa, Japan, for their help in making this study possible. We also thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

Author contributions

YA conceived, designed, and initiated the study, collected data, performed all statistical analyses, wrote the manuscript, and provided patient care. KN, HK, AK, DM, and MT provided patient care. EO and TO interpreted the PET/CT images. KM supervised the study and provided patient care. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

259_2019_4275_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (322 kb)
Fig. S1 Survival according to the presence or absence of more than three focal lesions (FLs) (high-risk PET/CT findings). (A) Progression-free survival and (B) overall survival in patients with and without high-risk PET/CT findings. Fig. S2 Survival according to the levels of maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax). (A) Progression-free survival and (B) overall survival in patients with lower (< 4.2) and higher (≥ 4.2) SUVmax. Fig. S3 Survival according to the presence or absence of extramedullary diseases (EMDs). (A) Progression-free survival and (B) overall survival in patients with and without EMDs. Fig. S4 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. ROC curve analysis for circulating plasma cells (CPCs) predicting the highest risk of disease progression within 2 years (A) or death within 5 years (B). Fig. S5 Survival according to the levels of clonal circulating plasma cells (CPCs). (A) Progression-free survival and (B) overall survival in patients with lower (<0.10%) and higher (≥0.10%) CPC levels. Fig. S6 Progression-free survival (PFS) according to the PET-circulating plasma cell (PET-CPC) staging system in patients with different ages. PFS according to the PET-CPC staging system in (A) younger (age < 75 years) and (B) older (≥75 years) patients. Fig. S7 Progression-free survival (PFS) according to the PET-circulating plasma cell (PET-CPC) staging system in patients with different Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) stages. PFS according to the PET-CPC staging system in patients with (A) R-ISS stage II and (B) R-ISS stage III. (PDF 322 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, Crowley JJ, Barlogie B, Blade J, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3412–20.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.04.242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, Lokhorst HM, Goldschmidt H, Rosinol L, et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from international myeloma working group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2863–9.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.2267.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kastritis E, Zervas K, Symeonidis A, Terpos E, Delimbassi S, Anagnostopoulos N, et al. Improved survival of patients with multiple myeloma after the introduction of novel agents and the applicability of the international staging system (ISS): an analysis of the Greek myeloma study group (GMSG). Leukemia. 2009;23:1152–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2008.402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kastritis E, Terpos E, Roussou M, Gavriatopoulou M, Migkou M, Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou E, et al. Evaluation of the revised international staging system in an independent cohort of unselected patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2017;102:593–9.  https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2016.145078.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chng WJ, Dispenzieri A, Chim CS, Fonseca R, Goldschmidt H, Lentzsch S, et al. IMWG consensus on risk stratification in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2014;28:269–77.  https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2013.247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sonneveld P, Avet-Loiseau H, Lonial S, Usmani S, Siegel D, Anderson KC, et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the international myeloma working group. Blood. 2016;127:2955–62.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-01-631200.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL, Tosi P, Beksac M, Sezer O, et al. International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2009;23:1545–56.  https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2009.89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walker RC, Brown TL, Jones-Jackson LB, De Blanche L, Bartel T. Imaging of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell dyscrasias. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1091–101.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.098830.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C, Moreau P, Lentzsch S, Zweegman S, et al. Role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a consensus statement by the international myeloma working group. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:e206–e17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30189-4. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TLY, Shaughnessy JD Jr, van Rhee F, Anaissie E, et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;114:2068–76.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2009-03-213280.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, Zannetti B, Englaro E, Pezzi A, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood. 2011;118:5989–95.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Usmani SZ, Mitchell A, Waheed S, Crowley J, Hoering A, Petty N, et al. Prognostic implications of serial 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography in multiple myeloma treated with total therapy 3. Blood. 2013;121:1819–23.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2012-08-451690.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jung SH, Kwon SY, Min JJ, Bom HS, Ahn SY, Jung SY, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT is useful for determining survival outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma classified as stage II and III with the revised international staging system. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;46(1):107–115.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4114-0.
  14. 14.
    Aljama MA, Sidiqi MH, Buadi FK, Lacy MQ, Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, et al. Utility and prognostic value of (18) F-FDG positron emission tomography-computed tomography scans in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2018;93(12):1518–1523.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25279.
  15. 15.
    Gonsalves WI, Rajkumar SV, Gupta V, Morice WG, Timm MM, Singh PP, et al. Quantification of clonal circulating plasma cells in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: implications for redefining high-risk myeloma. Leukemia. 2014;28:2060–5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2014.98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gonsalves WI, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, Dingli D, Timm MM, Morice WG, et al. Quantification of circulating clonal plasma cells via multiparametric flow cytometry identifies patients with smoldering multiple myeloma at high risk of progression. Leukemia. 2017;31:130–5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2016.205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chakraborty R, Muchtar E, Kumar SK, Jevremovic D, Buadi FK, Dingli D, et al. Serial measurements of circulating plasma cells before and after induction therapy have an independent prognostic impact in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing upfront autologous transplantation. Haematologica. 2017;102:1439–45.  https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2017.166629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar S, Witzig TE, Greipp PR, Rajkumar SV. Bone marrow angiogenesis and circulating plasma cells in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2003;122:272–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nowakowski GS, Witzig TE, Dingli D, Tracz MJ, Gertz MA, Lacy MQ, et al. Circulating plasma cells detected by flow cytometry as a predictor of survival in 302 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2005;106:2276–9.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2005-05-1858.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paiva B, Paino T, Sayagues JM, Garayoa M, San-Segundo L, Martin M, et al. Detailed characterization of multiple myeloma circulating tumor cells shows unique phenotypic, cytogenetic, functional, and circadian distribution profile. Blood. 2013;122:3591–8.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-06-510453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, et al. International myeloma working group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e328–e46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M, Castellucci P, Tosi P, Cangini D, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:525–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-005-0004-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chakraborty R, Muchtar E, Kumar SK, Jevremovic D, Buadi FK, Dingli D, et al. Risk stratification in myeloma by detection of circulating plasma cells prior to autologous stem cell transplantation in the novel agent era. Blood Cancer J. 2016;6:e512.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bcj.2016.117.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A, Chauvie S, Bianchi A, Rensi M, et al. Image interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: a new proposal from an Italian expert panel. IMPeTUs (Italian myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:414–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3200-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nanni C, Versari A, Chauvie S, Bertone E, Bianchi A, Rensi M, et al. Interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma (IMPeTUs): final results. IMPeTUs (Italian myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:712–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3909-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dingli D, Nowakowski GS, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Rajkumar SV, et al. Flow cytometric detection of circulating myeloma cells before transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a simple risk stratification system. Blood. 2006;107:3384–8.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2005-08-3398.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mikkilineni L, Kochenderfer JN. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies for multiple myeloma. Blood. 2017;130:2594–602.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-06-793869.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cavo M, Tosi P, Zamagni E, Cellini C, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F, et al. Prospective, randomized study of single compared with double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Bologna 96 clinical study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2434–41.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.10.2509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kumar A, Kharfan-Dabaja MA, Glasmacher A, Djulbegovic B. Tandem versus single autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:100–6.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ross FM, Ibrahim AH, Vilain-Holmes A, Winfield MO, Chiecchio L, Protheroe RK, et al. Age has a profound effect on the incidence and significance of chromosome abnormalities in myeloma. Leukemia. 2005;19:1634–42.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.leu.2403857.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Avet-Loiseau H, Hulin C, Campion L, Rodon P, Marit G, Attal M, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities are major prognostic factors in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: the intergroupe francophone du myelome experience. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2806–9.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.46.2598.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lauring J, Abukhdeir AM, Konishi H, Garay JP, Gustin JP, Wang Q, et al. The multiple myeloma associated MMSET gene contributes to cellular adhesion, clonogenic growth, and tumorigenicity. Blood. 2008;111:856–64.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2007-05-088674.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hurt EM, Wiestner A, Rosenwald A, Shaffer AL, Campo E, Grogan T, et al. Overexpression of c-maf is a frequent oncogenic event in multiple myeloma that promotes proliferation and pathological interactions with bone marrow stroma. Cancer Cell. 2004;5:191–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lopez-Corral L, Gutierrez NC, Vidriales MB, Mateos MV, Rasillo A, Garcia-Sanz R, et al. The progression from MGUS to smoldering myeloma and eventually to multiple myeloma involves a clonal expansion of genetically abnormal plasma cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:1692–700.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1066.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Haematology/Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineKameda Medical CentreKamogawaJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyKameda Medical CentreKamogawaJapan

Personalised recommendations