Immunoparesis in symptomatic multiple myeloma at diagnosis affects PFS with bortezomib-containing induction therapy, but not ASCT consolidation
In novel agent era, the impact of immunoparesis at diagnosis on outcomes in symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) remains unclear. We reviewed medical records of 147 MM patients at Beijing Chao Yang hospital. Most patients exhibited immunoparesis at diagnosis (84%). After a median follow-up of 27 months (range 1–78 months), in the group with immunoparesis at diagnosis, there was a very significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than in the group without immunoparesis (estimated PFS of not reached vs 25 months, P = 0.001). Patients with suppressed Immunoglobulins (Igs) had the tendency to have a shorter OS than patients without suppression (estimated OS of not reached vs 38 months, P = 0.06). In multivariate analysis, the negative impact of immunoparesis on PFS was confirmed. In addition, achievement of both at least VGPR and at least CR was significantly higher in patients with preserved uninvolved Igs than in those with suppression of at least one uninvolved Ig. However, the negative impact of immunoparesis on response was not confirmed in a multivariate analysis. These results suggest immunoparesis in patients with symptomatic MM at diagnosis is an independent poor prognostic factor for upfront bortezomib-containing regimen.
KeywordsSymptomatic Multiple myeloma Immunoparesis Bortezomib
The authors would like to thank for these MM patients in the study.
WG and JL collected and analyzed data and wrote the manuscript. YJ, GZY, YW, YCL, YL, AJL, YT, HJW, GRW, HXZ, and ZYZ contributed with treatment of patients and reviewed and approved the manuscript. WMC contributed with study design, data collection and interpretation, and manuscript writing.
This project was supported by grant and contract from Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical medicine Development of special funding support (code: XMLX201847).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Witzig TE, Lust JA, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, et al. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78:21–33.Google Scholar
- 5.Alexanian R, Migliore PJ. Normal immunoglobulins in multiple myeloma: effect of melphalan chemotherapy. J Lab Clin Med. 1970;75:225–33.Google Scholar
- 7.Katodritou E, Terpos E, Symeonidis AS, Pouli A, Kelaidi C, Kyrtsonis MC, et al. Clinical features, outcome, and prognostic factors for survival and evolution to multiple myeloma of solitary plasmacytomas: a report of the Greek myeloma study group in 97 patients. Am J Hematol. 2014;89:803–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Perez-Persona E, Vidriales MB, Mateo G, Garcia-Sanz R, Mateos MV, de Coca AG, et al. New criteria to identify risk of progression in monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance and smoldering multiple myeloma based on multiparameter flow cytometry analysis of bone marrow plasma cells. Blood. 2007;110:2586–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Tsujimoto T, Lisukov IA, Huang N, Mahmoud MS, Kawano MM. Plasma cells induce apoptosis of pre-B cells by interacting with bone marrow stromal cells. Blood. 1996;87:3375–83.Google Scholar