{"title":"新诊断多发性骨髓瘤患者的梅奥添加分期系统和最小残留病灶的预后价值评估","authors":"Yichuan Song, Rui Zhao, Wenxuan Fu, Jing Zhao, Qingtao Wang, Rui Zhang","doi":"10.1002/cam4.70382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the Mayo additive staging system (MASS) and minimal residual disease (MRD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 238 NDMM patients were enrolled in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital. Fluorescence in-situ hybridization and next-generation flow cytometry were used to examine cytogenetic abnormalities and MRD, respectively. The patients were classified into three groups to compare the effects on progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were applied to identify the survival-related factors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For MASS group, the PFS was significant difference in MASS I, II, and III patients (<i>p</i> = 0.0006); the patients with sustained MRD-negative, non-sustained MRD-negative, sustained MRD-positive, and non-sustained MRD-positive were divided into Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The Group 1 patients had superior PFS than Groups 2 and 3 patients (<i>p</i> < 0.05), but no difference in PFS was observed for Group 2 versus Group 3, Group 2 versus Group 4, and Group 3 versus Group 4 patients. For the MASS and MRD groups, among Groups 2, 3, and 4, MASS I patients had a superior PFS, while III patients showed the opposite result. Strikingly, no difference in PFS for Group 1 patients regardless of the MASS stage was observed. Despite being in MASS II and III, the PFS of Group 1 patients was longer than those with the other three groups. Response to treatment was an independent prognostic factor for MM patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Patients with an accumulation of high-risk factors and MRD-positive have poor outcomes. Sustained MRD-negative may improve high-risk patients' prognoses.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":139,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Medicine","volume":"13 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cam4.70382","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Prognostic Value of the Mayo Additive Staging System and Minimal Residual Disease in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients\",\"authors\":\"Yichuan Song, Rui Zhao, Wenxuan Fu, Jing Zhao, Qingtao Wang, Rui Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cam4.70382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the Mayo additive staging system (MASS) and minimal residual disease (MRD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 238 NDMM patients were enrolled in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital. Fluorescence in-situ hybridization and next-generation flow cytometry were used to examine cytogenetic abnormalities and MRD, respectively. The patients were classified into three groups to compare the effects on progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were applied to identify the survival-related factors.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>For MASS group, the PFS was significant difference in MASS I, II, and III patients (<i>p</i> = 0.0006); the patients with sustained MRD-negative, non-sustained MRD-negative, sustained MRD-positive, and non-sustained MRD-positive were divided into Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The Group 1 patients had superior PFS than Groups 2 and 3 patients (<i>p</i> < 0.05), but no difference in PFS was observed for Group 2 versus Group 3, Group 2 versus Group 4, and Group 3 versus Group 4 patients. For the MASS and MRD groups, among Groups 2, 3, and 4, MASS I patients had a superior PFS, while III patients showed the opposite result. Strikingly, no difference in PFS for Group 1 patients regardless of the MASS stage was observed. Despite being in MASS II and III, the PFS of Group 1 patients was longer than those with the other three groups. Response to treatment was an independent prognostic factor for MM patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients with an accumulation of high-risk factors and MRD-positive have poor outcomes. Sustained MRD-negative may improve high-risk patients' prognoses.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Medicine\",\"volume\":\"13 21\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cam4.70382\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70382\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70382","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of the Prognostic Value of the Mayo Additive Staging System and Minimal Residual Disease in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients
Introduction
This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the Mayo additive staging system (MASS) and minimal residual disease (MRD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients.
Methods
A total of 238 NDMM patients were enrolled in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital. Fluorescence in-situ hybridization and next-generation flow cytometry were used to examine cytogenetic abnormalities and MRD, respectively. The patients were classified into three groups to compare the effects on progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were applied to identify the survival-related factors.
Results
For MASS group, the PFS was significant difference in MASS I, II, and III patients (p = 0.0006); the patients with sustained MRD-negative, non-sustained MRD-negative, sustained MRD-positive, and non-sustained MRD-positive were divided into Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The Group 1 patients had superior PFS than Groups 2 and 3 patients (p < 0.05), but no difference in PFS was observed for Group 2 versus Group 3, Group 2 versus Group 4, and Group 3 versus Group 4 patients. For the MASS and MRD groups, among Groups 2, 3, and 4, MASS I patients had a superior PFS, while III patients showed the opposite result. Strikingly, no difference in PFS for Group 1 patients regardless of the MASS stage was observed. Despite being in MASS II and III, the PFS of Group 1 patients was longer than those with the other three groups. Response to treatment was an independent prognostic factor for MM patients.
Conclusion
Patients with an accumulation of high-risk factors and MRD-positive have poor outcomes. Sustained MRD-negative may improve high-risk patients' prognoses.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access, interdisciplinary journal providing rapid publication of research from global biomedical researchers across the cancer sciences. The journal will consider submissions from all oncologic specialties, including, but not limited to, the following areas:
Clinical Cancer Research
Translational research ∙ clinical trials ∙ chemotherapy ∙ radiation therapy ∙ surgical therapy ∙ clinical observations ∙ clinical guidelines ∙ genetic consultation ∙ ethical considerations
Cancer Biology:
Molecular biology ∙ cellular biology ∙ molecular genetics ∙ genomics ∙ immunology ∙ epigenetics ∙ metabolic studies ∙ proteomics ∙ cytopathology ∙ carcinogenesis ∙ drug discovery and delivery.
Cancer Prevention:
Behavioral science ∙ psychosocial studies ∙ screening ∙ nutrition ∙ epidemiology and prevention ∙ community outreach.
Bioinformatics:
Gene expressions profiles ∙ gene regulation networks ∙ genome bioinformatics ∙ pathwayanalysis ∙ prognostic biomarkers.
Cancer Medicine publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and research methods papers, along with invited editorials and commentaries. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.