Analysis of serum free light chains κ/λ ratio and heavy/light chain pairs of immunoglobulin to the stratification of multiple myeloma according to Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Revised International Staging System

Czech version

Authors: Vlastimil Ščudla ^1,2; Jana Balcárková ²; Pavel Lochman ³; Miroslava Vincová ²; Tomáš Pika ²; Jiří Minařík ²; Jana Zapletalová ⁴; Marie Jarošová ²
Authors‘ workplace: III. interní klinika nefrologická, revmatologická a endokrinologická LF UP a FN Olomouc ¹; Hemato-onkologická klinika LF UP a FN Olomouc ²; oddělení klinické biochemie FN Olomouc ³; Ústav lékařské biofyziky LF UP Olomouc ⁴
Published in: Vnitř Lék 2016; 62(4): 269-280
Category: Original Contributions

Overview

Introduction:
Assessment of serum levels of free light chains (FLC-κ and FLC-λ) and recently heavy/light chain pairs of immunoglobulin (HLC-κ and HLC-λ) and their ratio (FLC-r and HLC-r) has significantly enriched traditional algorithm of multiple myeloma (MM) evaluation. The aim of the presented study was to assess the relationship of classical prognostic parameters of MM, standard FLC-κ/λ and HLC-κ/λ ratio (^sFLC-r and ^sHLC-r), modified ratio of „involved/uninvolved“ FLC and HLC (^mFLC-r and^mHLC-r ), the difference between „involved – uninvolved“ FLC and HLC (FLC-dif. and HLC-dif.) to current stratification models of MM based on the result of cytogenetic analysis.

Patients and methods:
In a group of 97 patients with MM we assessed serum levels of FLC by Freelite^TM method, and we calculated ^sFLC-r, ^mFLC-r and FLC-dif. indices by Hevylite^TM method. For cytogenetic analysis we used FICTION (fluorescence immunophenotyping and interphase cytogenetics as a tool for the investigation of neoplasms). For MM stratification we used standard staging systems according to Durie-Salmon (D-S) and International Staging System (ISS) as well as novel stratification systems based on the results of cytogenetic analysis, ie. „Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy“ (mSMART) and „Revised International Staging System“ (R-ISS).

Results:
Stratification mSMART and R-ISS has significantly different representation of „standard“ or „low-risk“ (71, 15.5, 11.3 a 29.9 %), „intermediate risk“ (15.5, 53.6, 34 a 33 %) and „high risk“ patients (13.4, 30.9, 54.7 a 37.1 %) compared to standard staging systems. mSMART stratification was compared to prognostic factors of MM (Hb, albumin, β₂-M, creatinine and LDH), and the only significant relationship was found in the case of β₂-M, R-ISS had relationship only to Hb and creatinine. In the case of D-S staging we found significant relationship of stages 1–3 and substages A and B to the levels of ^mFLC-r, FLC-dif. and ^mHLC-r, ISS had moreover relationship to k HLC-dif. and MIg concentration. Analysis of mSMART stratification showed primarily significant relationship of risk categories 1–3 to ^mFLC-r and ^sHLC-r indices, and R-ISS to ^mHLC-r index and MIg concentration. In both cytogenetics-based stratifications there was a lack of relationship to ^sFLC-r, FLC-dif. and HLC-dif. indices.

Conclusion:
Comparison of the results of standard staging systems according to D-S and ISS with cytogenetics based models mSMART and R-ISS showed different representation of risk groups, and significantly different relationship to classical prognostic factors together with original relationship of sMART stratification to ^mFLC-r and ^sHLC-r, and R-ISS to ^mHLC-r and MIg concentration.

Key words:
cytogenetic analysis – free light chains ratio – heavy/light chain pairs of immunoglobulin ratio – multiple myeloma – prognostic factors – stratification of multiple myeloma

Sources

1. Avet-Loiseau H, Facon T, Grosbois B et al. Oncogenesis of multiple myeloma: 14q32 and 13q chromosomal abnormalities are not randomly distributed, but correlate with natural history, immunological features, and clinical presentation. Blood 2002; 99(6): 2185–2191.

2. Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Moreau M et al. Genetic abnormalities and survival in multiple myeloma: the experience of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. Blood 2007; 109(8): 3489–3495.

3. Kalff A, Spencer A. The t(4;14) translocation and FGFR3 over expression in multiple myeloma: prognostic implications and current clinical strategies. Blood Cancer J 2012; 2: e89. Dostupné z DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bcj.2012.37.

4. Liebisch P, Döhner H. Cytogenetics and molecular cytogenetics in multiple myeloma. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42(11): 1520–1529.

5. Keasts J, Reiman T, Maxwell CA et al. In multiple myeloma, t(4;14(p16;q32) is an adverse prognostic factor irrespective of FGFR3 expression. Blood 2003; 101(4): 1520–1529.

6. Greenberg AJ, Rajkumar SV, Therneau TM et al. Relationship between initial clinical presentation and the molecular cytogenetic classification of myeloma. Leukemia 2014; 28(2): 398–403.

7. Avet-Loiseau H. Role of genetics in prognostication in myeloma. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2007; 20(4): 625–635.

8. Kumar S, Fonseca R, Ketterling RP et al. Trisomies in multiple myeloma: impact on survival in patients with high-risk cytogenetics. Blood 2012; 119(9): 2100–2105.

9. Hajek R, Adam Z, Scudla V et al. Guidelines of Czech Myeloma Group 2012. Diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Transfuze Hematol Dnes 2012; 18(Suppl 1): 5–89. Dostupné z WWW: http://www.myeloma.cz/res/file/Trans%20suppl%201.pdf.

10. International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Brit J Haematol 2003; 121(5): 749–757.

11. Greipp PR, San Miguel JF, Fonseca R et al. Development of an International prognostic index (IPI) for myeloma: report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Hematol J 2003; 4(Suppl 1): S42-S43.

12. Mikhael JR, Dingli D, Vivek R et al. Management of newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma: updated Mayo stratification of myeloma and risk-adapted therapy (mSMART) consensus guidelines 2013. Mayo Clin Proc 2013; 88(4): 360–376.

13. Combining information regarding chromosomal aberrations t(4;14) and del(17p13) with the International Staging System classification allows stratification of myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation.

14. Boyd KD, Ross FM, Chiecchio L et al. A novel prognostic model in myeloma based on segregating averse FISH lesions and the ISS: Analysis of patients treated in the MRC Myeloma IX trial. Leukemia 2012; 26(2): 349–355.

15. Avet-Loiseau H, Durie BGM, Cavo M et al. Combining fluorescent in situ hybridization data with ISS staging improves risk assessment in myeloma: An International Myeloma Working Group collaborative project. Leukemia 2013; 27(3): 711–717.

16. Moreau P, Cavo M, Sonneveld P et al. Combination of international scoring system 3, high lactate dehydrogenase, and t(4;14) and/or del(17p) identifies patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with front-line autologous stem cell transplantation and high-risk of early MM progression-related death. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32(20): 2173–2180.

17. Facon T, Avet-Loiseau H, Guillerm G et al. Chromosome 13 abnormalities identified by FISH analysis and serum beta2-microglobulin produce a powerful myeloma staging system for patients receiving high-dose therapy. Blood 2001; 97(6): 1566–1571.

18. Kumar SK, Mikhael JR, Buadi F et al. Management of newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma: updated Mayo stratification of myeloma and risk-adapted therapy (mSMART) consensus guidelines. Mayo Clin Proc 2009; 84(12): 1095–1110.

19. Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S et al. Revised International Staging System for multiple myeloma: A report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33(26): 2863–2869.

20. Bradwell AR, Harding SJ, Fourrier NJ et al. Assessment of monoclonal gammopathies by nephelometric measurement of individual immunoglobulin κ/λ ratios. Clin Chem 2009; 55(9): 1646–1655.

21. Keren DF. Heavy/light-chain analysis of monoclonal gammopathies. Clin Chem 2009; 55(9): 1606–1608.

22. Katzmann JA, Kyle RA, Benson J et al. Screening panels for detection of monoclonal gammopathies. Clin Chem 2009; 55(8): 1517–1522.

23. Dispenzieri A, Kyle RA, Merlini G et al. International Myeloma Working Group guidelines for serum-free light chain analysis in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Leukemia 2009; 23(2): 215–224.

24. The Binding Site Group Ltd. Serum free light chain analysis plus Hevylite. 7th ed. The Binding Site: Birmingham 2015.

25. Ščudla V, Pika T, Minařík J. Význam vyšetření párů těžkých/lehkých řetězců imunoglobulinu (HevyliteTM) u monoklonálních gamapatií. Vnitř Lék 2015; 61(1): 60–71.

26. Bhutani M, Landgren O, Korde N. Serum heavy-light chains (HLC) and free-light chains (FLC) as predictors for early CR in newly diagnosed myeloma patients treated with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. 55TH ASH Annual Meeting, 2013. Abstr. No. 762. Dostupné z WWW: http://www.myelomabeacon.com/docs/ash2013/762.pdf.

27. Ludwig H, Faint J, Zojer N et al. Serum heavy/light chain and free light chain measurements provide prognostic information, allow creation of a prognostic model and identify clonal changes (clonal tiding) through the course of multiple myeloma. Blood 2011; 118(23): 1244.

28. Katzmann JA, Clark R, Kyle RA et al. Supression of uninvolved immunoglobulins defined by heavy/light chain pair suppression is a risk factor for progression of MGUS. Leukemia 2013; 27(1): 208–212.

29. Batinic J, Perič Z, Šegulja D et al. Immunoglobulin heavy/light chain analysis enhances the detection of residual disease and monitoring of multiple myeloma patients. Croat Med J 2015; 56(3): 263–271.

30. Balcárková J, Procházková K, Ščudla V et al. Molekulárně cytogenetická analýza plazmatických buněk u pacientů s mnohočetným myelomem. Transfuze Hematol Dnes 2007; 13(4): 176–182.

31. Kyrtsonis MCH, Theodoros P, Vassilakopoulos TP et al. Prognostic value of serum free light chain ratio at diagnosis in multiple myeloma. Brit J Haematol 2007; 137(3): 240–243.

32. Jekarl DW, Min ChK, Kwon A et al. Impact of genetic abnormalities on the prognosis and clinical parameters of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Lab Med 2013; 33(4): 248–254.

33. Larsen JT, Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A et al. Serum free light chain ratio as a biomarker for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2013; 27(4): 941–946.

34. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15(12): e538-e548. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470–2045(14)70442–5>.

35. Keats JJ, Chessi M, Egan JB et al. Clonal competition with alternating dominance in multiple myeloma. Blood 2012; 120(5): 1067–1076.

36. Brioli A, Giles H, Pawlyn Ch et al. Serum free immunoglobulin light chain evaluation as a marker of impact from intraclonal heterogeneity on myeloma outcome. Blood 2014; 123(22): 3414–3419.

37. Fonseca R. International Myeloma Working Group molecular classification of multiple myeloma: spotlight review. Leukemia 2009; 23(12): 2210–2221.

38. Dispenzieri A, Rajkumar SV, Gertz MA et al. Treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma based on Mayo Stratification of Myeloma Risk-adapted Therapy (mSMART): consensus statement. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82(3): 323–341.

39. An G, Xu Y, Shi L et al. Chromosome 1q21 gains confer inferior outcomes in multiple myeloma treated with bortezomib but copy number variation and percentage of plasma cells involved have no additional prognostic value. Haematologica 2014; 99(2): 353–359.

40. Hanamura I, Stewart JP, Huang Y et al. Frequent gain of chromosome band 1q21 in plasma-cell dyscrasias detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization: incidence increases from MGUS to relapsed myeloma and is related to prognosis and disease progression following tandem stem-cell transplantation. Blood 2006; 108(5): 1724–1732.

41. Zojer N, Königsberg R, Ackermann J et al. Deletion of 13q14 remains an independent adverse prognostic variable in multiple myeloma despite its frequent detection by interphase fluorescence. Blood 2000; 95(6): 1925–1930.

42. Lai JL, Zandecki M, Mary JY et al. Improved cytogenetics in multiple myeloma: a study of 151 patients including 117 patients at diagnosis. Blood 1995; 85(9): 2490–2497.

43. Terpos E, Katodritou E, Roussou M et al. High serum lactate dehydrogenase adds prognostic value to the international staging system even in the era of novel agents. Eur J Haematol 2010; 85(2): 114–119.

44. Koulieris E, Panayiotidis P, Harding SJ et al. Ratio of involved/uninvolved immunoglobulin quantification by HevyliteTM assay: clinical and prognostic impact in multiple myeloma. Exp Hematol Oncol 2012; 1(1): 9.

45. Bradwell AR, Harding S, Fourrier N et al. Prognostic utility of intact immunoglobulin Ig´kappa/Ig´lambda ratios in multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia 2013; 27(1): 202–207.

46. Ludwig H, Milosavljevic D, Zojer N et al. Immunoglobulin heavy/light chain ratios improve paraprotein detection and monitoring, identify residual disease and correlate with survival in multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia 2013; 27(1): 213–219.

47. Ludwig H, Milosavljevic D, Zojer N et al. Supression of the non-involved HLC pair correlates with survival in newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory patients with myeloma. Congress of European Haematology Association, Milano 2014; P-980. Am J Hematol 2016; 91(3): 295–301. Dostupné z WWW: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajh.24268/pdf

48. Avet-Loiseau H, Malard F, Campion L et al. Translocation t(14;16) and multiple myeloma: is it really an independent prognostic factor? Blood 2011; 117(6): 2009–2011.

49. Cavallo F, Rasmussen E, Zangari M et al. Serum Free-Light chain (sFLC) assay in multiple myeloma (MM). Clinical correlates and prognostic implications in newly diagnosed MM patients treated with total therapy 2 or 3 (TTP2/3). Blood 2005; 106: Abstract no. 3490.

50. Kastritis E, Terpos E, Moulopoulos L et al. Extensive bone marrow infiltration and abnormal free light chain ratio identifies patients with asymptomatic myeloma at high risk for progression to symptomatic disease. Leukemia 2013; 27(4): 947–953.

51. Waxman AJ, Mick R, Garfall AL et al. Modeling the risk of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32(5 Suppl): Abstract 8607.

52. Ghobrial IM, Landgren O. How I treat smoldering multiple myeloma. Blood 2014; 124(23): 3380–3388.

53. Maisnar V, Pour L, Pika T et al (Czech Myeloma Group, Czech Republic). The significance of Hevylite test for determination of prognosis in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma-the results of a new CMG project. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2015; 15(Suppl 3): e120. PO-72. Dostupné z DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2015.07.307.

54. Pika T, Lochman P, Sandecka V et al. Immunoparesis in MGUS – Relationship of uninvolved immunoglobulin pair supression and polyclonal immunoglobuline levels to MGUS risk categories. Neoplasma 2015; 62(5): 827–832.

55. Shaughnessy JD jr, Zhan F, Burington BE et al. A validated gene expression model of high-risk multiple myeloma is defined by deregulated expression of genes mapping to chromosome 1. Blood 2007; 109(6): 2276–2284.

56. López-Corral L, Sarasquete ME, Bea S et al. SNP-based mapping arrays reveal high genomic complexity in monoclonal gammopathies, from MGUS to myeloma status. Leukemia 2012; 26(12): 2521–2529.