Immune Netw.  2017 Aug;17(4):250-260. 10.4110/in.2017.17.4.250.

Distinct Clinical Outcomes between Paramedullary and Extramedullary Lesions in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

• Batsukh K
• Lee SE
• Min GJ
• Park SS
• Jeon YW
• Yoon JH
• Cho BS
• Eom KS
• Kim YJ
• Kim HJ
• Lee S
• Cho SG
• Kim DW
• Lee JW
• Min WS
• Min CK

• KMID: 2388079
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4110/in.2017.17.4.250

Abstract

This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical features of paramedullary lesions (PLs) and extramedullary lesions (ELs) of plasmacytomas at diagnosis, using positron emission tomography integrated with computed tomography, using glucose labeled with the positron-emitting radionuclide ¹â¸F (¹â¸F-FDG-PET/CT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), and to address their prognostic impact. Sixty-four patients with NDMM presenting ELs (n=22) and/or PLs (n=42) were included. Patients with ELs at initial presentation had unfavorable laboratory parameters of calcium and lactate dehydrogenase, a higher percentage of bone marrow plasma cells, and showed a trend toward advanced international staging system (ISS), compared to patients with PLs. Using X-ray imaging, high bone disease (HBD) was observed in 50% and 71% of patients with ELs and PLs, respectively. After a median follow-up of 29.2 months (range, 3.4-76.5 months) in survivors, patients with ELs had a significantly lower overall survival (OS) (p=0.033) than patients with PLs did, whereas the progression-free survival (PFS) did not differ significantly (p=0.818). However, the PFS after 1(st) progression was significantly worse in patients with ELs than in those with PLs (p=0.017). In the multivariate analyses, the negative impact of initial ELs on OS (p=0.033) was sustained. Our results demonstrated the different clinical features and outcomes of ELs and PLs in NDMM. Patients with initial ELs showed a shorter PFS after 1(st) progression, which translated into poor OS, providing insight into the different biological effect of ELs.

Keyword

Multiple myeloma; Plasmacytomas; ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT

MeSH Terms

Bone Diseases
Bone Marrow
Calcium
Diagnosis
Disease-Free Survival
Follow-Up Studies
Glucose
Humans
L-Lactate Dehydrogenase
Multiple Myeloma*
Multivariate Analysis
Plasma Cells
Plasmacytoma
Positron-Emission Tomography
Retrospective Studies
Survivors
Calcium
Glucose
L-Lactate Dehydrogenase

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Comparison of osteolytic lesions, visualized by X-ray imaging, between patients with ELs and PLs detected by PET/CT.

• 

  Figure 2 Kaplan-Meier estimates of outcome after diagnosis and after 1st progression, according to the presence of ELs vs. PLs at diagnosis. Probabilities of OS (A), PFS (B), and PFS after 1st progression (C).

• 

  Figure 3 Comparison of immune cell populations between patients with newly diagnosed MM without EMPs (control group) and with EMPs (ELs+PLs). Frequencies of M-MDSCs (A), G-MDSCs (B), CD4+ T cells (C), and CD8+ T cells (D) were compared. Data (right panel) are presented as the mean±SEM, and t-tests were used to compare the continuous variables. SEM, standard error of the mean.

Reference

1. Palumbo A, Anderson K. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364:1046–1060.

2. Bladé J, Fernández de Larrea C, Rosiñol L, Cibeira MT, Jiménez R, Powles R. Soft-tissue plasmacytomas in multiple myeloma: incidence, mechanisms of extramedullary spread, and treatment approach. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29:3805–3812.

3. Wu P, Davies FE, Boyd K, Thomas K, Dines S, Saso RM, Potter MN, Ethell ME, Shaw BE, Morgan GJ. The impact of extramedullary disease at presentation on the outcome of myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009; 50:230–235.

4. Varettoni M, Corso A, Pica G, Mangiacavalli S, Pascutto C, Lazzarino M. Incidence, presenting features and outcome of extramedullary disease in multiple myeloma: a longitudinal study on 1003 consecutive patients. Ann Oncol. 2010; 21:325–330.

5. Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL, Tosi P, Beksac M, Sezer O, Siegel D, Lokhorst H, Kumar S, Rajkumar SV, et al. International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma. Leukemia. 2009; 23:1545–1556.

6. Terpos E, Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos LA. The role of imaging in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma in 2016. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016; 35:e407–e417.

7. Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL, Shaughnessy JD Jr, van Rhee F, Anaissie E, Alpe T, Angtuaco E, Walker R, Epstein J, et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009; 114:2068–2076.

8. Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A, Chauvie S, Bianchi A, Rensi M, Bellò M, Rambaldi I, Gallamini A, Patriarca F, et al. Image interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: a new proposal from an Italian expert panel. IMPeTUs (Italian Myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016; 43:414–421.

9. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2009; 23:3–9.

10. Lee SE, Kim JH, Jeon YW, Yoon JH, Shin SH, Eom KS, Kim YJ, Kim HJ, Lee S, Cho SG, et al. Impact of extramedullary plasmacytomas on outcomes according to treatment approach in newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2015; 94:445–452.

11. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (US). Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) [Internet]. accessed on 28 November 2016. Available at https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp.

12. Mulligan ME, Badros AZ. PET/CT and MR imaging in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol. 2007; 36:5–16.

13. Schirrmeister H, Buck AK, Bergmann L, Reske SN, Bommer M. Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging of solitary plasmacytoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2003; 18:841–845.

14. Lu YY, Chen JH, Lin WY, Liang JA, Wang HY, Tsai SC, Kao CH. FDG PET or PET/CT for detecting intramedullary and extramedullary lesions in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2012; 37:833–837.

15. Tirumani SH, Sakellis C, Jacene H, Shinagare AB, Munshi NC, Ramaiya NH, Van den Abbeele AD. Role of FDG-PET/CT in extramedullary multiple myeloma: correlation of FDG-PET/CT findings with clinical outcome. Clin Nucl Med. 2016; 41:e7–e13.

16. Vande Broek I, Vanderkerken K, Van Camp B, Van Riet I. Extravasation and homing mechanisms in multiple myeloma. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2008; 25:325–334.

17. Vande Broek I, Leleu X, Schots R, Facon T, Vanderkerken K, Van Camp B, Van Riet I. Clinical significance of chemokine receptor (CCR1, CCR2 and CXCR4) expression in human myeloma cells: the association with disease activity and survival. Haematologica. 2006; 91:200–206.

18. Tohami T, Drucker L, Shapiro H, Radnay J, Lishner M. Overexpression of tetraspanins affects multiple myeloma cell survival and invasive potential. FASEB J. 2007; 21:691–699.

19. Hedvat CV, Comenzo RL, Teruya-Feldstein J, Olshen AB, Ely SA, Osman K, Zhang Y, Kalakonda N, Nimer SD. Insights into extramedullary tumour cell growth revealed by expression profiling of human plasmacytomas and multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2003; 122:728–744.

20. Demchenko YN, Glebov OK, Zingone A, Keats JJ, Bergsagel PL, Kuehl WM. Classical and/or alternative NF-kappaB pathway activation in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2010; 115:3541–3552.

21. Wirk B, Wingard JR, Moreb JS. Extramedullary disease in plasma cell myeloma: the iceberg phenomenon. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013; 48:10–18.