All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.

The Multiple Myeloma Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

Introducing

Now you can personalise
your Multiple Myeloma Hub experience!

Bookmark content to read later

Select your specific areas of interest

View content recommended for you

Find out more
  TRANSLATE

The Multiple Myeloma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.

The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. Digital educational resources delivered on the Multiple Myeloma Hub are supported by an educational grant from Janssen Biotech, Inc. View funders.

2022-02-17T16:34:13.000Z

Incorporating PET imaging in a new risk stratification system for NDMM

Feb 17, 2022
Share:

Bookmark this article



Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) are risk stratified according to the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) designed by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG).1 The R-ISS is based on parameters including the presence of beta-2 microglobulin, serum albumin levels, serum lactate dehydrogenase levels, and the presence of cytogenetic abnormalities. However, other high-risk factors such as the presence of multiple bone lesions and extramedullary disease have not been incorporated into the model. Recently, the IMWG recommend the use of imaging techniques, such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT (18F-FDG PET/CT), to aid in the diagnosis of MM.1

Cho et al. along with the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party,1 recently designed a new risk stratification system that incorporates 18F-FDG PET/CT analysis with the R-ISS to effectively stratify patients with NDMM according to their survival outcomes. The development and validation of this new risk stratification model, the R-ISS/PET, was published in the Blood Cancer Journal and is summarized below. 

Study design and patient characteristics

  • The initial cohort consisted of 380 patients with NDMM who had 18F-FDG PET/CT analysis upon diagnosis across ten hospitals of the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party from September 2009 to March 2020.
  • Patient characteristics can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Patient characteristics*

Characteristic, % (unless otherwise stated)

n = 380

Median age (range), years

66 (3486)

≥65 years

54.5

Male/Female

52.1/47.9

ECOG PS, %

 

                  01

77.4

                  23

20.0

                  Unknown

2.6

Increased LDH

27.9

Albumin ≥3.5 g/dL

61.6

Beta-2 microglobulin ≥ 5.5 mg/L

36.8

CA by iFISH

 

                  Standard risk

81.3

                  High risk

18.7

R-ISS

 

                  I

20.5

              II

60.5

              II

18.9

Extramedullary disease

13.4

No of focal lesions on PET/CT

 

                  ≤3

47.6

                  >3

52.4

Frontline therapy

 

                  Proteasome inhibitors

80.8

                  Immunomodulatory agents

49.5

                  Auto-HSCT

34.5

Auto-HSCT, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; CA, cytogenetic abnormality; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; iFISH, interphase fluorescent in situ hybridization; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; PET/CT, positron emission tomography/computed tomography; R-ISS, Revised International Staging System.
*Adapted from Cho et al.1

  • Regarding treatment response, 27.1% of patients had a complete response, 28.2% had a very good partial response, 29.7% had a partial response, 9.7% had stable disease, and 5.3% had progressive disease.
  • The validation cohort consisted of 67 patients with NDMM from one hospital who had 18F-FDG PET/CT analysis upon diagnosis between June 2006 and February 2021. 
    • Baseline characteristics were similar to those in the original cohort.
  • Median follow-up was 26 months (range, 0.1153 months)

Results

Survival rates by focal lesions on 18F-FDG PET/CT evaluation or R-ISS

  • Survival rates by the number of focal lesions on 18F-FDG PET/CT or R-ISS stage can be seen in Table 2.
    • The 2-year overall survival (OS) and 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates differed significantly between patients with ≤3 focal lesions and those with >3 (p = 0.094 and p < 0.001, respectively).
    • The 2-year OS and 2-year PFS rates differed significantly between the different R-ISS stages (both p < 0.001), with lower rates for higher stages.

Table 2. Survival rates by the number of focal lesions or R-ISS stage*

 

2-year PFS rate, %

2-year OS rate, %

Number of FL on 18F-FDG PET/CT

 

 

                  ≤3 FL

78.0

84.2

                  >3 FL

42.9

62.5

R-ISS stage

 

 

                  Stage I

71.8

95.3

                  Stage II

53.2

82.9

                  Stage III

26.8

61.2

18F-FDG PET/CT, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography; FL, focal lesions; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; R-ISS, Revised International Staging System.
*Data from Cho et al.1

Combining the number of focal lesions on 18F-FDG PET/CT with the R-ISS

A K-adaptive partitioning algorithm was undertaken to provide a statistically optimized combination of R-ISS with the number of focal lesions seen on 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Patients were defined into four groups, which successfully distinguished the patients with regard to 2-year PFS (p < 0.001) and 2-year OS (p < 0.001), as seen in Table 3. This was independent of transplant eligibility and treatment type.

Table 3. Survival rates by R-ISS/PET*

R-ISS/PET stage

Combination

% of patients

2-year PFS

2-year OS

I

R-ISS I with FL ≤3

8.2

84.1

96.7

II

R-ISS I with FL >3 and

R-ISS II with FL ≤3

41.1

64.7

89.8

III

R-ISS II with FL >3 and

R-ISS III with FL ≤3

42.6

40.8

74.7

IV

R-ISS III with FL >3

8.2

17.1

50.3

FL, focal lesions; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; R-ISS/PET, Revised International Staging System with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.
*Data from Cho et al.1

The C-index values for OS and PFS were 0.668 (0.609–0.725) and 0.657 (0.615-0.698), respectively.

Multivariate Cox analysis (Table 4) also showed the R-ISS/PET was a significant factor in predicting long-term outcomes with regard to PFS and OS, with an increasing hazard ratio with each stage compared to Stage I. 

Table 4. Multivariate analysis of factors affecting PFS and OS with the R-ISS/PET*

Factor

PFS

OS

HR (95% CI)

p value

HR (95% CI)

p value

Age, ≥65 years vs <65 years

1.33 (0.98–1.80)

0.063

1.56 (0.99–2.45)

0.053

ECOG PS, 2vs 01

1.01 (0.91–1.13)

0.848

1.14 (1.01–1.28)

0.034

EMD

1.22 (0.80–1.84)

0.353

1.68 (0.97–2.91)

0.062

R-ISS/PET stage

 

 

 

 

                  I

1.00

 

1.00

 

                  II

2.21 (1.00–4.90)

0.050

2.50 (0.59–10.7)

0.215

                  III

4.57 (2.09–10.0)

<0.001

5.11 (1.23–21.3)

0.035

                  IV

9.48 (3.88–12.2)

<0.001

10.3 (2.24–47.0)

0.003

CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; EMD, extramedullary disease; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression free survival; R-ISS/PET, Revised International Staging System with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. 
*Data from Cho et al.1

Validation cohort

When assessed by the R-ISS stage, the external validation cohort showed similar 2-year PFS rates and 2-year OS rates to the initial cohort (Table 5). The classic stages showed a good degree of separation for survival outcomes (p = 0.268 for 2-year PFS and p = 0.037 for 2-year OS).

Table 5. Survival rates by R-ISS stage in the validation cohort*

R-ISS stage

2-year PFS rate, %

2-year OS rate, %

I

88.9

100

II

60.4

80.3

III

39.3

61.3

OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; R-ISS, Revised International Staging System.
*Data from Cho et al.1

When the external validation cohort was assessed by the R-ISS/PET (Table 6), the stages also showed a significant separation for survival outcomes (p = 0.004 for 2-year PFS and p = 0.001 for 2-year OS).

Table 6. Survival rates by R-ISS/PET stage in the validation cohort*

R-ISS/PET stage

% of patients

2-year PFS, %

2-year OS, %

I

2.6

100

100

II

27.6

74.5

89.9

III

40.8

57.9

82.6

IV

17.1

25.6

42.0

OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; R-ISS/PET, Revised International Staging System with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.
*Data from Cho et al.1

Conclusion

The number of focal lesions assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT was demonstrated to be a reliable imaging parameter for predicting survival outcomes and therefore a feasible factor to be incorporated with the R-ISS. This new risk stratification model, the R-ISS/PET, was validated by an external cohort and was able to define patients with NDMM into four risk groups according to survival differences. The R-ISS/PET was able to separate patients in the R-ISS Stage II group (which accounted for ~60% of the population) and allows for a more accurate prognosis than the R-ISS.

This study is limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis as there was no standardization of the interpretation of the imaging analysis. Therefore, the results may be subjected to inter-hospital variations between the ten centers where the data were collected. Furthermore, false negatives could be possible for patients with extensive bone involvement but low expression of hexokinase-2 (the enzyme involved in the glycolysis of FDG in malignant cells). Therefore, a prospective study using newer high-risk fluorescent in situ hybridization markers such as t(14;20), gain(1q21), and del(1p32) may be required to further validate the R-ISS/PET model. 

  1. Cho HJ, Jung SH, Jo JC, et al. Development of a new risk stratification system for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma using R-ISS and 18F-FDG PET/CT. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11(12):190. DOI: 1038/s41408-021-00577-2

Your opinion matters

Which dosing schedule for belantamab mafodotin do you think is optimal for providing an efficacy benefit while managing toxicities?
2 votes - 43 days left ...

Related articles

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox