Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Myeloma

Evaluation of the kinetics of the bone marrow tumor load in the course of sequential high-dose therapy assessed by quantitative PCR as a predictive parameter in patients with multiple myeloma

Bone Marrow Transplantation volume 26, pages 851–858 (2000)Cite this article

Abstract

The aim of this investigation was to examine the possible clinical significance of the kinetics of bone marrow (BM) tumor load during the course of sequential high-dose therapy (HDT) as assessed by quantitative PCR in patients with multiple myeloma. In 20 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with two consecutive cycles of HDT followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT), clonotypic cells in the peripheral blood (PB) and BM were quantitated by PCR using allele-specific oligonucleotides (ASO) prior to the first, immediately prior to the second, and after the second HDT. The median proportion of clonotypic cells in the BM was 1.27% before the first HDT (range, 0.03–70%), 0.17% after the first (range, 0.001–22%), and 0.05% after the second HDT (range, 0.00009–1.44%). The median number of circulating clonotypic cells was 65/ml (range, 0.9–10842) prior to HDT, 2.7/ml (range, 0–315) after the first, and 3.5/ml PB (range, 0.7–97) after the second HDT. While the median BM tumor load decreased during the first (P = 0.03) and second (P = 0.044) HDT cycles, only the first cycle resulted in a reduction of clonotypic cells in the PB (P = 0.00078 and P = 1.0, respectively). In seven patients, the BM tumor load did not decrease below the initial level after one or two cycles of HDT. All of these patients developed progressive disease (median, 19 months post first cycle; range, 10–21). Of the remaining 13 patients, only four relapsed (18, 19, 21 and 22 months after the first cycle of HDT), while nine remain in response (median follow-up, 29 months; range, 18–41) (log-rank test P = 0.0009). Our results indicate that the kinetics of the BM tumor load is a predictive parameter in patients with MM and identifies those patients who could benefit from further therapy including new treatment modalities. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2000) 26, 851–858.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Attal M, Harousseau JL, Stoppa AM et al. A prospective randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma New Engl J Med 1996 335: 91–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Barlogie B, Jagannath S, Desikan KR et al. Total therapy with tandem transplants for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Blood 1999 93: 55–65

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Attal M, Payen C, Facon T et al. Single versus double transplant in myeloma: a randomized trial of the ‘Inter Groupe Francais Du Myelome’ (IFM) Bone Marrow Transplant 1998 21: S206 (Abstr. 718)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Desikan KR, Tricot G, Dhodapkar M et al. Melphalan plus total body irradiation (MEL-TBI) or cyclophosphamide (MEL-CY) as a conditioning regimen with second autotransplant in responding patients with myeloma is inferior compared to historical controls receiving tandem transplants with melphalan alone Bone Marrow Transplant 2000 25: 483–487

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gahrton G, Svensson H, Cavo M et al. Allogeneic and syngeneic transplantation in multiple myeloma. VIIth Int. Workshop on Multiple Myeloma, Stockholm, September 1999 (Abstr. 134)

  6. Durie BGM, Salmon SE . 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: 842–854

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldschmidt H, Martin H, Serke S et al. Tandem autologous transplantation (tpx) for multiple myeloma (MM): results of a German multicenter study Blood 1998 92: 662a (Abstr. 2730)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blade J, Samson D, Reece D et al. Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant Br J Haematol 1998 102: 1115–1123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chomczynski P, Sacchi N . Single-step method of RNA isolation by acid guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform extraction Anal Biochem 1987 162: 156–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cremer FW, Kiel C, Wallmeier M et al. A quantitative PCR assay for the dectection of low amounts of malignant cells in multiple myeloma Ann Oncol 1997 8: 633–636

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Aubin J, Davi F, Nguyen-Salomon F et al. Description of a novel FR1 IgH PCR strategy and its comparison with three other strategies for the detection of clonality in B cell malignancies Leukemia 1995 9: 471–479

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brisco MJ, Tan LW, Orsborn AM et al. Development of a highly sensitive assay, based on the polymerase chain reaction, for rare B-lymphocyte clones in a polyclonal population Br J Haematol 1990 75: 163–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kwok S, Higuchi R . Avoiding false positives with PCR Nature 1989 339: 237–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Taswell C . Limiting dilution assays for the determination of immunocompetent cell frequencies J Immunol 1981 126: 1614–1619

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vescio R, Stewart A, Ballester O et al. Increase in circulating tumor cell burden during mobilization chemotherapy predicts for relapse after autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma patients Blood 1997 90: 565a (Abstr. 2515)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Björkstrand B, Ljungman P, Bird JM et al. Double high-dose chemoradiotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation can induce molecular remissions in multiple myeloma Bone Marrow Transplant 1995 15: 367–371

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Billadeau D, Prosper F, Verfaillie C et al. Sequential analysis of bone marrow and peripheral blood after stem cell transplant for myeloma shows disparate tumor involvement Leukemia 1997 11: 1565–1570

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kiel K, Cremer FW, Rottenburger C et al. Analysis of circulating tumor cells in patients with multiple myeloma in the course of high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant 1999 23: 1019–1027

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Berenson J, Wong R, Kim K et al. Evidence for peripheral blood B lymphocyte but not T lymphocyte involvement in multiple myeloma Blood 1987 70: 1550–1553

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Takishita M, Kosaka M, Goto T et al. Cellular origin and extent of clonal involvement in multiple myeloma: genetic and phenotypic studies Br J Haematol 1994 87: 735–742

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bergsagel PL, Smith AM, Szczepek A et al. In multiple myeloma, clonotypic B lymphocytes are detectable among CD19+ peripheral blood cells expressing CD38, CD56, and monotypic Ig light chain Blood 1995 85: 436–447

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McSweeney PA, Wells DA, Shults KE et al. Tumor-specific aneuploidy not detected in CD19+ B-lymphoid cells from myeloma patients in a multidimensional flow cytometry analysis Blood 1996 88: 622–632

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gerard CJ, Olsson K, Ramanathan R et al. Improved quantitation of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma using real-time polymerase chain reaction and plasmid-DNA complementarity determining region III standards Cancer Res 1998 58: 3957–3964

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Robert A Vescio for his critical reading of the manuscript. We thank Hildegard Bethäuser, Maria Dörner, and Carmen Kröner for excellent technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik V, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    FW Cremer, E Ehrbrecht, AD Ho, H Goldschmidt & M Moos

  2. Landesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Germany

    K Kiel

  3. Abteilung Biostatistik, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany

    A Benner

  4. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    U Hegenbart

Authors
  1. FW Cremer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E Ehrbrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K Kiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A Benner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. U Hegenbart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. AD Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H Goldschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M Moos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cremer, F., Ehrbrecht, E., Kiel, K. et al. Evaluation of the kinetics of the bone marrow tumor load in the course of sequential high-dose therapy assessed by quantitative PCR as a predictive parameter in patients with multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 26, 851–858 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1702628

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1702628

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links