Advertisement

Staging in Multiple Myeloma

  • Leonard T. Heffner
Part of the Contemporary Hematology book series (CH)

A useful staging system should define a specific point in the course of a disease that can be characterized by a certain group of clinical or laboratory findings. Among the values of a uniformly accepted staging system are the ability to predict responses to treatment and survival, as well as having a system that allows for retrospective analyses of therapies and prospective planning of clinical trials. As useful treatments became available for myeloma, the search for parameters that might predict outcomes among these patients became more important. Initially, individuals presenting clinical features were considered for prognostic importance, including mainly renal function, hemoglobin, calcium, presence of Bence-Jones proteinuria, and immunoglobulin subtype.1, 2, 3, 4, 5However, Carbone was among the first to group a series of such features that represented good or poor prognosis and found that performance status, level of anemia, calcium level, and renal function correlated with...

Keywords

Staging System International Stage System Southwest Oncology Study Group Poor Risk Group International Stage System Stage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Carbone, P.P., L.E. Kellerhouse,and E.A. Gehan, Plasmacytic myeloma. A study of the relationship of survival to various clinical manifestations and anomalous protein type in 112 patients. Am J Med, 1967. 42(6): pp. 937–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dawson, A. A and D. Ogston, Factors influencing the prognosis in myelomatosis Postgrad Med J, 1971. 47(552): pp. 635–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Report on the first myelomatosis trial. I. Analysis of presenting features of prognostic importance. Br J Haematol, 1973. 24(1): pp. 123–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergsagel, D.E., P.J. Migliore, and K.M. Griffith, Myeloma proteins and the clinical response to melphalan therapy. Science, 1965. 148: pp. 376–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Correlation of abnormal immunoglobulin with clinical features of myeloma. Arch Intern Med, 1975. 135(1): pp. 46–52.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexanian, R., et al., Prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Cancer, 1975. 36(4): pp. 1192–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Durie, B.G. and S.E. Salmon, A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer, 1975. 36(3): pp. 842–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bataille, R., B.G. Durie, and J. Grenier, Serum beta2 microglobulin and survival duration in multiple myeloma: a simple reliable marker for staging. Br J Haematol, 1983. 55(3): pp. 439–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gobbi, P.G., et al., A plea to overcome the concept of staging and related inadequacy in multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol, 1991. 46(3): pp. 177–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merlini, G., P.G. Gobbi, and E. Ascari, The Merlini, Waldenstrom, Jayakar staging system revisited. Eur J Haematol Suppl, 1989. 51: pp. 105–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bataille, R., et al., Prognostic factors and staging in multiple myeloma: A reap-praisal. J Clin Oncol, 1986. 4(1): pp. 80–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobson, J.L., et al., A new staging system for multiple myeloma patients based on the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) experience. Br J Haematol, 2003. 122(3): pp. 441–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greipp, P.R., et al., International Staging System for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol, 2005. 23(15): pp 3412–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krejci, M., et al., Prognostic factors for survival after autologous transplantation: A single centre experience in 133 multiple myeloma patients. Bone Marrow Transplant, 2005. 35(2): pp. 159–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bergsagel, P.L., et al., Cyclin D dysregulation: An early and unifying pathogenic event in multiple myeloma. Blood, 2005. 106(1): pp. 296–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergsagel, P.L. and W.M. Kuehl, Molecular pathogenesis and a consequent classification of multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol, 2005. 23(26): pp. 6333–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Durie, B.G., The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: Description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer, 2006. 42(11): pp. 1539–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walker, R., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: Diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol, 2007. 25(9): pp. 1121–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghanem, N., et al., Whole–body MRI in the detection of bone marrow infitteration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey. Eur Radiol, 2006. 16(5): pp. 1005–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zamagni, E., et al., A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica, 2007. 92(1): pp. 50–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonard T. Heffner
    • 1
  1. 1.Winship Cancer InstituteEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations