4.6 Article

Clinical characteristics and outcomes in biclonal gammopathies

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 473-475

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.24319

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA168762, P01 CA062242, P50 CA186781, CA107476, CA62242, R01 CA168762, R01 CA083724, CA100707, P50 CA100707, CA83724, R01 CA107476] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A single monoclonal protein typically characterizes monoclonal gammopathies, but a small proportion may have more than one M protein identifiable. In the setting of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM), the development of a new monoclonal protein following therapy is associated with better outcomes. As for the precursor conditions, monoclonal gammopathy undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), there is limited information on the impact of a second monoclonal protein on the disease course, including progression and response to treatment. The outcomes of patients with MGUS and SMM with more than one monoclonal protein, after identifying 539 patients with biclonal proteins on electrophoresis and/or immunofixation, were reported. About 22 of 393 patients with MGUS/biclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (BGUS) progressed to SMM (6), MM (11), AL (3), or WM (2), and 5 of 16 patients with biclonal SMM progressed to MM. The rate of progression for BGUS was approximately 1% per year, which is similar to MGUS with one monoclonal protein. The median estimated time of progression of biclonal SMM was 2.6 years; similar to monoclonal SMM. For patients with biclonal MM, both M spikes responded to treatment and, upon relapse, the original dominant M protein remained dominant as the disease progressed. In conclusion, the presence of a second monoclonal protein does not appear to affect the progression of precursor states and suggests multiple monoclonal proteins do not clinically impact one another in the course of the disease. Am. J. Hematol. 91:473-475, 2016. (c) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据