T(11;14) with multiple myeloma: Standard risk survival but slow and poor response

Yuntong Liu,Jingyu Xu,Wenqiang Yan,Yueshen Ma,Lingna Li,Jian Cui,Rui lv,Chenxing Du,Lugui Qiu,Gang An
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-024-06026-x
2024-10-04
Annals of Hematology
Abstract:We described 790 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, including 224 (28.4%) standard risk (SR) patients without t(11;14), 99 (12.5%) patients with t(11;14)alone, 58 (7.3%) with t(11;14) + HR, and 409 (51.8%) in the high-risk cytogenetic abnormality (HRCA) group including t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), C1A1 and/or del(17p) but without t(11;14), to evaluate the impact of t(11;14) in NDMM patients on response rate, response kinetics and survival. Our study showed that NDMM patients in the t(11;14)alone group had similar PFS (49.3 vs. 50.7 months; P = 0.392) and OS (112.4 vs. NR months; P = 0.982) as those in the SR group. However, the t(11;14)alone group exhibited a significantly poorer depth of response compared to the SR group, particularly with a lower MRD negativity rate (60.0% vs. 76.0%, P = 0.009). In the t(11;14)alone group, MRD status did not significantly impact PFS or OS, which was in contrast to the other groups. Response kinetics analyses showed that the t(11;14)alone group had a slower response rate than the other subgroups (t(11;14)alone vs. SR vs. HRCA: median time to MRD negativity = 9.19 vs. 4.25 vs. 4.27 months; P < 0.001). Our study showed that t(11;14)alone was characterized by survival comparable to standard risk cytogenetics despite exhibiting the slowest timing of response onset and lowest plateau of remission, which suggested a relatively indolent clinical course.
hematology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?