Application Value of Different Detection Methods in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Multiple Myeloma

Ziyang Zhou

doi:10.62051/31d5bt20

Authors

Ziyang Zhou

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/31d5bt20

Keywords:

Multiple myeloma; diagnosis; prognosis.

Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM), being a hematological tumor with a high incidence, has seriously threatened people's health and drawn the attention of numerous research. In recent years, along with the continuous advancement of research, an increasing number of technologies have been utilized in the diagnosis and prognosis evaluation of MM, and the approaches for the diagnosis and prognosis assessment of MM have become increasingly diversified. Cytogenetic detection, molecular biology detection, hematological detection and imaging detection are widely used in the diagnosis and prognosis evaluation of MM. In addition, researchers are also using immunological detection, detection of circulating tumor cells and DNA, machine learning and other methods to actively search for new biological targets, and try the combined application of multiple diagnostic pathways to continuously optimize the diagnosis and prognosis evaluation of MM. This paper reviewed several methods for the diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of MM, analyzed some advantages and disadvantages of each method in the diagnosis and prognostic evaluation, and put forward some thoughts for future research directions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Mikhael, Joseph et al. “Multiple Myeloma for the Primary Care Provider: A Practical Review to Promote Earlier Diagnosis Among Diverse Populations.” The American journal of medicine vol. 136, 1 (2023): 33 - 41. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2022. 08. 030.

[2] Hematology Branch of Chinese Medical Doctor Association, Hematology Branch of Chinese Medical Association. Chinese guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of multiple myeloma (revised in 2022) [J]. Chinese Journal of Internal Medicine, 202, 61 (5): 480 - 487.

[3] Cowan, Andrew J et al. “Diagnosis and Management of Multiple Myeloma: A Review.” JAMA vol. 327, 5 (2022): 464 - 477. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022. 0003.

[4] Clarke, Sarah E et al. “Chromosomal defects in multiple myeloma.” Blood reviews vol. 64 (2024): 101168. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2024.101168.

[5] Rajan, A., Rajkumar, S. Interpretation of cytogenetic results in multiple myeloma for clinical practice. Blood Cancer Journal 5, e365 (2015). https: //doi.org/10.1038/bcj. 2015. 92.

[6] S.V. Rajkumar, Multiple myeloma: 2022 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management Am J Hematol, 97 (2022), pp. 1086 - 1107.

[7] Goldman-Mazur, S., Vesole, D. H., & Jurczyszyn, A. “Clinical Implications of Cytogenetic and Molecular Aberrations in Multiple Myeloma.” Acta Haematol Pol, vol. 52, no. 1, 2021, pp. 18 - 28.

[8] Bal, S., Kumar, S. K., Fonseca, R., Gay, F., Hungria, V. T. M., Dogan, A., et al. “Multiple Myeloma with t (11; 14): Unique Biology and Evolving Landscape.” American Journal of Cancer Research, vol. 12, no. 7, 2022, pp. 2950 – 2965.

[9] Cazaubiel, T., Leleu, X., Perrot, A., Manier, S., Buisson, L., Maheo, S., et al. “Primary Plasma Cell Leukemias Displaying t (11; 14) Have Specific Genomic, Transcriptional, and Clinical Features.” Blood, vol. 139, no. 17, 2022, pp. 2666 – 2672.

[10] Hanamura, I. “Gain/Amplification of Chromosome Arm 1q21 in Multiple Myeloma.” Cancers, vol. 13, no. 2, 2021, p. 256.

[11] Hanamura, Ichiro. “Multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics and its treatment approach.” International journal of hematology vol. 115, 6 (2022): 762 - 777. doi: 10.1007/s12185 - 022 – 03353 - 5.

[12] Boyd, Kevin D et al. “Mapping of chromosome 1p deletions in myeloma identifies FAM46C at 1p12 and CDKN2C at 1p32.3 as being genes in regions associated with adverse survival.” Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research vol. 17, 24 (2011): 7776 - 84. doi: 10.1158/1078 - 0432. CCR - 11 - 1791.

[13] Schavgoulidze, Anaïs et al. “Biallelic deletion of 1p32 defines ultra-high-risk myeloma, but monoallelic del (1p32) remains a strong prognostic factor.” Blood vol. 141, 11 (2023): 1308 - 1315. doi: 10.1182/blood. 2022017863.

[14] Walker, Brian A et al. “A high-risk, Double-Hit, group of newly diagnosed myeloma identified by genomic analysis.” Leukemia vol. 33, 1 (2019): 159 - 170. doi: 10.1038/s41375 - 018 - 0196 - 8.

[15] Mikulasova, Aneta et al. “The spectrum of somatic mutations in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance indicates a less complex genomic landscape than that in multiple myeloma.” Haematologica vol. 102, 9 (2017): 1617 - 1625. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2017.163766.

[16] Shida Chen et al. Significance of Common Blood Test Indexes in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Multiple Myeloma. Clin. Lab. 2022; 68: XXX-XXX. DOI: 10.7754/Clin. Lab. 2021. 210716.

[17] Zeng, Qiang et al. “Prognostic value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and clinicopathological characteristics for multiple myeloma: A meta-analysis.” Medicine vol. 97, 41 (2018): e12678. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012678.

[18] Zhang, Xinwen et al. “Are the Derived Indexes of Peripheral Whole Blood Cell Counts (NLR, PLR, LMR/MLR) Clinically Significant Prognostic Biomarkers in Multiple Myeloma? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Frontiers in oncology vol. 11 766672. 23 Nov. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fonc. 2021. 766672.

[19] Han, Fuyan, Nan Sheng, Chenchen Sheng, and Jing Meng. 2023. “The Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Hematologic Parameters in Multiple Myeloma Patients.” Hematology 28 (1). doi: 10.1080/16078454. 2023. 2240145.

[20] Shi L, Qin X, Wang H, et al. Elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio and decreased platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio are associated with poor prognosis in multiple myeloma. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 18792 – 18801. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget. 13320.

[21] Ying, Limei et al. “Evaluating the screening value of serum light chain ratio, β2 macroglobulin, lactic dehydrogenase and immunoglobulin in patients with multiple myeloma using ROC curves.” PloS one vol. 18, 2 e0281743. 16 Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1371/journal. pone. 0281743.

[22] Wang, Si-Ying et al. Zhongguo shi yan xue ye xue za zhi vol. 31, 3 (2023): 788 - 793. doi: 10.19746/j.cnki.issn.1009 - 2137. 2023. 03. 025.

[23] Murray, David L et al. “Mass spectrometry for the evaluation of monoclonal proteins in multiple myeloma and related disorders: an International Myeloma Working Group Mass Spectrometry Committee Report.” Blood cancer journal vol. 11, 2 24. 1 Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41408-021-00408 - 4.

[24] Nassar, Sameh et al. “Multiple Myeloma: Role of Imaging in Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment Response Assessment.” Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR vol. 42, 2 (2021): 184 - 193. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2020. 08. 019.

[25] Zanoni, Lucia, et al. "Overview and recent advances in PET / CT imaging in lymphoma and multiple myeloma." European Journal of Radiology, 2021.

[26] Bartel, Thomas B., et al. "F18 - fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma." Blood, 2009.

[27] Zamagni, Elena, et al. "Prognostic relevance of 18 - F FDG PET / CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up - front autologous transplantation." Blood, 2011.

[28] Siontis, Bikas, et al. "Positron emission tomography - computed tomography in the diagnostic evaluation of smoldering multiple myeloma: Identification of patients needing therapy." Blood Cancer Journal, 2015.

[29] Moreau, Philippe, et al. "Evaluation of the Prognostic Value of Positron Emission Tomography - Computed Tomography (PET - CT) at Diagnosis and Follow - up in Transplant - Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (TE NDMM) Patients Treated in the Phase 3 Cassiopeia Study: Results of the Cassio pet Companion Study." Blood, 2019.

[30] Cavo, Michele et al. “Role of 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.” The Lancet. Oncology vol. 18, 4 (2017): e206 - e217. doi: 10.1016/S1470 - 2045 (17) 30189 - 418.

[31] Mulé, Sébastien et al. “Whole-Body Functional MRI and PET/MRI in Multiple Myeloma.” Cancers vol. 12, 11 3155. 27 Oct. 2020, doi: 10.3390/cancers12113155.

[32] Chen, Jianpu et al. “Comparison of Whole-Body DWI and F-FDG PET/CT for Detecting Intramedullary and Extramedullary Lesions in Multiple Myeloma.” AJR. American journal of roentgenology vol. 213, 3 (2019): 514 - 523. doi: 10.2214/AJR. 18. 2098918.

[33] Jamet, Bastien et al. “DCE-MRI to distinguish all monoclonal plasma cell disease stages and correlation with diffusion-weighted MRI/PET-based biomarkers in a hybrid simultaneous whole body-2-[18F] FDG-PET/MRI imaging approach.” Cancer imaging: the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society vol. 24, 1 93. 11 Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s40644 - 024 – 00740 - 5.