Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2021; 42(03): 297-300
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732852
Brief Communication

Potential Prognostic Significance of Patterns of Deletion (13q) in Plasma Cell Myelomas—Reappraisal of a Perennial Bone of Contention

Mohit Kumar Bhardwaj   *
1   Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, CORE Diagnostics, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Sourav Kumar Mishra   *
2   Department of Medical Oncology, Advanced Medical Research Institute, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
,
Shivani Sharma
1   Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, CORE Diagnostics, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Beklashwar Salona
1   Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, CORE Diagnostics, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Sambit Kumar Mohanty
1   Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, CORE Diagnostics, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
3   Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Advanced Medical Research Institute, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
› Author Affiliations Disclosure of Funding/Support None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum to: Potential Prognostic Significance of Patterns of Deletion (13q) in Plasma Cell Myelomas—Reappraisal of a Perennial Bone of ContentionIndian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2021; 42(03): e2-e2
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741583

Abstract

Deletion 13q is recommended in the initial cytogenetic workup of myeloma patients. The patterns of this abnormality have been shown to have differential prognostic value. The presence of monosomy 13 is associated with a significantly poor progression-free survival, while interstitial deletion 13q is associated with significant improvement in the overall survival. We analyzed the patterns of 13q abnormalities on fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) assay results in myeloma patients. Deletion 13q abnormalities were observed in 38% (55 of 138) of the myeloma patients. Ten (18%) and 44 (80%) patients showed interstitial deletion and terminal deletion, respectively. One had a mosaic of both the patterns. Nine of the ten patients with interstitial deletions were males. For terminal deletion 13q, there appeared to be a slight female predilection, with a male to female ratio of 0.83:1. Half of the patients with deletion 13q had coexistent cytogenetic abnormalities. We suggest a baseline FISH for deletion 13q and specification of the type of abnormality (terminal vs. interstitial) in patients with myeloma. Based on our observation in conjunction with the available literature, further studies in a large cohort of patients with survival data are warranted to clearly delineate the role of deletion 13q in myeloma.

Keywords

myeloma - deletion 13q - prognosis - interstitial - terminal

* MK and SKM share the first authorship.




Publication History

Article published online:
20 September 2021

© 2021. Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • NCCN guidelines for multiple myeloma [ https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/myeloma.pdf]. Accessed June 30, 2021
  • 2 Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma: 2020 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management. Am J Hematol 2020; 95 (05) 548-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fonseca R, Oken MM, Harrington D. et al Deletions of chromosome 13 in multiple myeloma identified by interphase FISH usually denote large deletions of the q arm or monosomy. Leukemia 2001; 15 (06) 981-986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Avet-Louseau H, Daviet A, Sauner S, Bataille R. Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. Chromosome 13 abnormalities in multiple myeloma are mostly monosomy 13. Br J Haematol 2000; 111 (04) 1116-1117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Moreau P. et al Genetic abnormalities and survival in multiple myeloma: the experience of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. Blood 2007; 109 (08) 3489-3495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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 in situ hybridization. Blood 2000; 95 (06) 1925-1930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Binder M, Rajkumar SV, Ketterling RP. et al Prognostic implications of abnormalities of chromosome 13 and the presence of multiple cytogenetic high-risk abnormalities in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J 2017; 7 (09) e600-e600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wiktor AE, Van Dyke DL, Stupca PJ. et al Preclinical validation of fluorescence in situ hybridization assays for clinical practice. Genet Med 2006; 8 (01) 16-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Avet-Loiseau H, Li JY, Morineau N. et al Monosomy 13 is associated with the transition of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to multiple myeloma. Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome. Blood 1999; 94 (08) 2583-2589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Juge-Morineau N, Harousseau JL, Amiot M, Bataille R. The retinoblastoma susceptibility gene RB-1 in multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 1997; 24 (3-4) 229-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Chng WJ, Glebov O, Bergsagel PL, Kuehl WM. Genetic events in the pathogenesis of multiple myeloma. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2007; 20 (04) 571-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dao DD, Sawyer JR, Epstein J, Hoover RG, Barlogie B, Tricot G. Deletion of the retinoblastoma gene in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 1994; 8 (08) 1280-1284
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shaughnessy J, Tian E, Sawyer J. et al High incidence of chromosome 13 deletion in multiple myeloma detected by multiprobe interphase FISH. Blood 2000; 96 (04) 1505-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kadam Amare PS, Jain H, Nikalje S. et al Observation on frequency & clinico-pathological significance of various cytogenetic risk groups in multiple myeloma: an experience from India. Indian J Med Res 2016; 144 (04) 536-543
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dhiman P, Goel S, Samal P. et al FISH Analysis in Multiple Myeloma - a Retrospective Study from India. Blood 2016; 128 (22) 5646
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Tricot G, Barlogie B, Jagannath S. et al Poor prognosis in multiple myeloma is associated only with partial or complete deletions of chromosome 13 or abnormalities involving 11q and not with other karyotype abnormalities. Blood 1995; 86 (11) 4250-4256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chiecchio L, Protheroe RKM, Ibrahim AH. et al Deletion of chromosome 13 detected by conventional cytogenetics is a critical prognostic factor in myeloma. Leukemia 2006; 20 (09) 1610-1617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gutiérrez NC, Castellanos MV, Martín ML. et al GEM/PETHEMA Spanish Group. Prognostic and biological implications of genetic abnormalities in multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation: t(4;14) is the most relevant adverse prognostic factor, whereas RB deletion as a unique abnormality is not associated with adverse prognosis. Leukemia 2007; 21 (01) 143-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Boyd KD, Ross FM, Chiecchio L. et al NCRI Haematology Oncology Studies Group. A novel prognostic model in myeloma based on co-segregating adverse FISH lesions and the ISS: analysis of patients treated in the MRC Myeloma IX trial. Leukemia 2012; 26 (02) 349-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Binder M, Rajkumar SV, Gertz MA. et al Predictors of early response to initial therapy in patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 2015; 90 (10) 888-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar