Purpose: Most data on the prognostic impact of cytogenetic abnormalities come from the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, it remains unclear whether the dynamic changes of cytogenetic aberrations affect the prognostic evaluation in multiple myeloma.

Methods: We analyzed the prognostic impact of dynamic changes of cytogenetic abnormalities with a cohort consisting of 80 paired patients with consecutive cytogenetic data both at diagnosis and recurrence among 568 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Results: Three patterns of recurrence were established from 80 paired patients: Pattern A (40%) consisted of 32 patients without new cytogenetic abnormalities at the time of progression. Pattern B (15%) consisted of 12 patients harboring new standard risk (SR) cytogenetic aberrations. Pattern C (45%) consisted of 36 patients with new high-risk (HR) cytogenetic abnormalities. The median overall survival (mOS; P <0.001) and median progression-free survival (mPFS; P =0.013) differed significantly among three patterns. Four groups including 60 paired patients were further established according to genetic risk stratification changes. There were 15 patients who kept SR in group 1 (25%); 12 SR patients who evolved into HR group in group 2 (20%); 17 HR patients without new HR cytogenetic abnormalities in group 3 (28%); and 16 HR patients harboring new HR cytogenetic aberrations in group 4 (27%). The mOS (P=0.001) also differed significantly among these four groups.

Conclusions: Dynamic cytogenetic changes significantly affected prognostic evaluation in multiple myeloma. Patients harboring new HR cytogenetic abnormalities and escalated genetic risk stratification at relapse had worse outcomes.

Figure 1
Figure 1
View largeDownload slide
Disclosures

Anderson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium-Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.: Other: Scientific Founder of Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Author notes

*

Asterisk with author names denotes non-ASH members.

© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology
2020
Sign in via your Institution