Multiple Myeloma: Criteria for Diagnosis and Response to Therapy

  • Evangelos TerposEmail author


Multiple myeloma is a B-cell malignancy characterized by a monoclonal expansion and accumulation of abnormal plasma cells in the bone marrow. The clinical manifestations of myeloma include bone complications, symptoms of impaired hemopoiesis, renal impairment, symptoms of hyperviscosity, infections, peripheral neuropathy, and symptoms of extramedullary disease. The International Myeloma Study Group has recently published new criteria for the diagnosis of active myeloma nad for response to therapy. The new diagnostic criteria include, in the well known CRAB criteria, the presence of lytic disease revealed not only by conventional radiography but also by computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT and also the presence of eGFR of below 40 ml/min due to myeloma. Furthermore other diagnostic criteria include in the absence of CRAB: presence of more than one focal lesion in the magnetic resonance imaging of the whole skeleton, more than 60% infiltration of the bone marrow by plasma cells and the free light chain ratio of more than 100. The new response criteria include minimal residual disease criteria both in the bone marrow (next generation sequencing or next generation flow cytometry) and outside the bone marrow (PET-CT).


  1. 1.
    Terpos E (2005) Rahemtulla A Myeloma. In: Hoffbrand V, Catovsky D, Tuddenham EGD (eds) Postgraduate Haematology, 5th edn. Blackwell Publishing, London, pp 681–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, Thiele J, Vardiman J (eds) (2008) World Health Organization classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues, 4th edn. IARC Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morgan GJ, Johnson DC, Weinhold N et al (2014) Inherited genetic susceptibility to multiple myeloma. Leukemia 28:518–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Terpos E, Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA (2011) Advances in imaging and the management of myeloma bone disease. J Clin Oncol 29:1907–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Terpos E, Kleber M, Engelhardt M et al (2015) European myeloma network guidelines for the management of multiple myeloma-related complications. Haematologica 100:1254–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katodritou E, Vadikolia C, Lalagianni C et al (2014) “Real-world” data on the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who were treated according to the standard clinical practice: a study of the Greek myeloma study group. Ann Hematol 93:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katodritou E, Dimopoulos MA, Zervas K, Terpos E (2009) Update on the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) for the management of anemia of multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Cancer Treat Rev 35:738–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimopoulos MA, Sonneveld P, Leung N et al (2016) International myeloma working group recommendations for the diagnosis and management of myeloma-related renal impairment. J Clin Oncol 34:1544–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwaan HC (2013) Hyperviscosity in plasma cell dyscrasias. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 55:75–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sobol U, Stiff P (2014) Neurologic aspects of plasma cell disorders. Handb Clin Neurol 120:1083–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kourelis TV, Kumar SK, Gertz MA et al (2013) Coexistent multiple myeloma or increased bone marrow plasma cells define equally high-risk populations in patients with immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol 31:4319–4324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, Fermand JP et al (2011) Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the international myeloma workshop consensus panel 3. Blood 117:4701–4705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Myeloma Working Group (2003) Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the international myeloma working group. Br J Haematol 121:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A et al (2014) International myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 15:e538–e548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC et al (2016) International myeloma working group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 17:e328–e346CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Therapeutics, School of MedicineNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations