Multiple myeloma is the second most common hematological malignancy in which pathological plasma cells secrete monoclonal proteins, ultimately leading to end-organ damage. Albumin, β2-microglobulin, and LDH are considered highly relevant biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of this disease. There are different types of treatment available depending on the age and eligibility for the autologous stem cell transplantation. The aim of this study was to investigate basic characteristics, prognostic biomarkers, and the use of different treatment protocols of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. The study included 50 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Data was collected from their medical records and the statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 15.0 program. The average age of patients at the time of making the diagnosis was 64, with the predominance of female patients. The most common type of myeloma was IgG kappa. More than half of the patients had advanced stage of multiple myeloma and a high-risk disease, according to the prognostic score at the time of the diagnosis. The results showed that almost all patients had elevated levels of β2 microglobulin. The most commonly used protocols in younger patients eligible for transplantation were VTD and CTD, whereas patients who were not suitable for transplantation were treated with melphalan-based protocols. The results of this study showed that basic characteristics, prognostic biomarkers, and the treatment modalities used in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients are similar to those described in global clinical practice.
Al-Farsi K. Multiple myeloma: an update. Oman Med J. 2013;28(1):3-11.
2.
Arnall M, KT H, RD M, D.C. Daratumumab for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Review of Clinical Applicability and Operational Considerations. Ann Pharmacother. 2022;56(8):927-40.
3.
R AH, AH B, F M. Current status of autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 2019;9(4):44.
4.
Dimopoulos MA, Moreau P, Terpos E. Multiple myeloma: EHA-ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up† [published correction appears in Ann Oncol 2022;33(1):117. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(3):309-22.
5.
MA VFL, F H, EQ C. Impact of the lactate dehydrogenase in association with the International Staging System prognostic score in multiple myeloma patients treated in real life. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2023;45(2):259-65.
6.
Teke HÜ, Başak M, Teke D, Kanbay M. Serum Level of Lactate Dehydrogenase is a Useful Clinical Marker to Monitor Progressive Multiple Myeloma Diseases: A Case Report. Turk J Haematol. 2014;31(1):84-7.
7.
Kim JE, Yoo C, Lee DH. Serum albumin level is a significant prognostic factor reflecting disease severity in symptomatic multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2010;89(4):391-7.
8.
Çiftçiler R, Göker H, Demiroğlu H. Evaluation of Prognostic Significance of the International Staging System According to Glomerular Filtration Rate in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Eligible for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation. Turk J Haematol. 2021;38(1):33–40.
9.
Filonzi G, Mancuso K, Zamagni E. A Comparison of Different Staging Systems for Multiple Myeloma: Can the MRI Pattern Play a Prognostic Role? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(1):152-158.
10.
Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, Michalis E. The International Scoring System (ISS) for multiple myeloma remains a robust prognostic tool independently of patients’ renal function. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(3):722-9.
11.
Spasov E, Goranova V. Prognostic assessment of the Durie and Salmon staging system in patients with multiple myeloma. Folia Med (Plovdiv. 1998;40(3B Suppl 3):121–3.
12.
Banerjee A, Pimpalgaonkar K, Christy AL. A Rare Case of Multiple Myeloma with Biclonal Gammopathy. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(12):BD03-BD04.
13.
Rafae A, Malik MN, Abu Zar M. An Overview of Light Chain Multiple Myeloma: Clinical Characteristics and Rarities, Management Strategies, and Disease Monitoring. Cureus. 2018;10(8):e3148.
14.
Nandra TK, Devi A, Jones. Multiple myeloma: What a non-haematologist should know. Clin Med (Lond. 2022;22(3):230-3.
15.
Jurczyszyn A, Suska A. Multiple Myeloma. In: Encyclopedia of biomedical gerontology. 2020.
16.
Ludwig H, Durie BG, Bolejack V. Myeloma in patients younger than age 50 years presents with more favorable features and shows better survival: an analysis of 10 549 patients from the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood. 2008;111(8):4039–47.
17.
Landgren O, Kazandjian D. Diagnosed with myeloma before age 40. Blood. 2021;138(25):2601-2.
18.
Zweegman S, Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Sonneveld P. Age and aging in blood disorders: multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2014;99(7):1133-37.
19.
Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. 2020.
20.
Kazandjian D. Multiple myeloma epidemiology and survival: A unique malignancy. Semin Oncol. 2016;43(6):676-81.
21.
Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):e538-48.
22.
Jelena B. Srpska mijelomska grupa. Multipli mijelom: dijagnostički i terapijski vodič. Peto izdanje Medicinski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu. 2022;
23.
Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S. Revised International Staging System for Multiple Myeloma: A Report From International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(26):2863-69.
24.
Argyropoulos CP, Chen SS, Ng YH. Rediscovering Beta-2 Microglobulin As a Biomarker across the Spectrum of Kidney Diseases. Front Med (Lausanne. 4(73).
25.
Wallington-Beddoe CT, Mynott RL. Prognostic and predictive biomarker developments in multiple myeloma. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14(1):151.
26.
Zhang JJ, Sun WJ, Huang ZX. Light chain multiple myeloma, clinic features, responses to therapy and survival in a long-term study. World J Surg Oncol. 12(234).
27.
Turgeon ML. Lymphoid and plasma cell neoplasms. In: Clinical hematology theory and procedures. 2018.
28.
Padala SA, Barsouk A, Barsouk A. Epidemiology, Staging, and Management of Multiple Myeloma. Med Sci (Basel. 2021;9(1):3.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
