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.

Myeloma

Deletion of the 1p32 region is a major independent prognostic factor in young patients with myeloma: the IFM experience on 1195 patients

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 05 March 2014

Abstract

Deletions of the 1p region appear as a pejorative prognostic factor in multiple myeloma patients (especially 1p22 and 1p32 deletions) but there is a lack of data on the real impact of 1p abnormalities on an important and homogeneous group of patients. To address this issue we studied by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) the incidence and prognostic impact of 1p22 and 1p32 deletions in 1195 patients from the IFM (Institut Francophone du Myélome) cell collection. Chromosome 1p deletions were present in 23.3% of the patients (271): 15.1% (176) for 1p22 and 7.3% (85) for 1p32 regions. In univariate analyses, 1p22 and 1p32 appeared as negative prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS): 1p22: 19.8 months vs 33.6 months (P<0.001) and 1p32: 14.4 months vs 33.6 months (P<0.001); and overall survival (OS): 1p22: 44.2 months vs 96.8 months (P=0.002) and 1p32: 26.7 months vs 96.8 months (P<0.001). In multivariate analyses, 1p22 and 1p32 deletions still appear as independent negative prognostic factors for PFS and OS. In conclusion, our data show that 1p22 and 1p32 deletions are major negative prognostic factors for PFS and OS for patients with MM. We thus suggest that 1p32 deletion should be tested for all patients at diagnosis.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

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

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, Crowley JJ, Barlogie B, Blade J et al. International Staging System for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 3412–3420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fonseca R, Bergsagel PL, Drach J, Shaughnessy J, Gutierrez N, Stewart K et al. International Myeloma Working Group molecular classification of multiple myeloma: spotlight review. Leukemia 2009; 23: 2210–2221.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Avet-Loiseau H, Durie BG, Cavo M, Attal M, Gutierrez N, Haessler J et al. Combining fluorescent in situ hybridization (iFISH) data with ISS staging improves risk assessment in myeloma: an International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) collaborative project. Leukemia 2013; 27: 711–717.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chng WJ, Kumar S, Vanwier S, Ahmann G, Price-Troska T, Henderson K et al. Molecular dissection of hyperdiploid multiple myeloma by gene expression profiling. Cancer Res 2007; 67: 2982–2989.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Facon T, Avet-Loiseau H, Guillerm G, Moreau P, Genevieve F, Zandecki M et al. Chromosome 13 abnormalities identified by FISH analysis and serum beta2-microglobulin produce a very powerful myeloma staging system for patients receiving high dose therapy. Blood 2001; 97: 1566–1571.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jenner MW, Leone PE, Walker BA, Ross FM, Johnson DC, Gonzalez D et al. Gene mapping and expression analysis of 16q loss of heterozygosity identifies WWOX and CYLD as being important in clinical outcome in multiple myeloma. Blood 2007; 110: 3291–3300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang H, Qi C, Yi QL, Reece D, Stewart K . p53 gene deletion detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization is an adverse prognostic factor for patients with multiple myeloma following autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 2005; 105: 358–360.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fonseca R, Van Wier SA, Chng WJ, Ketterling R, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A et al. Prognostic value of chromosome 1q21 gain by fluorescent in situ hybridization and increase CKS1B expression in myeloma. Leukemia 2006; 20: 2034–2040.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moreau P, Facon T, Leleu X, Morineau N, Huyghe P, Harousseau JL et al. Recurrent 14q32 translocations determine the prognosis of multiple myeloma, especially in patients receiving intensive chemotherapy. Blood 2002; 100: 1579–1583.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Avet-Loiseau H, Malard F, Campion L, Magrangeas F, Sebban C, Lioure B et al. Translocation t(14;16) and multiple myeloma: is it really an independent prognostic factor? Blood 2011; 117: 2009–2011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Avet-Loiseau H, Li C, Magrangeas F, Gouraud W, Charbonnel C, Harousseau JL et al. Prognostic significance of copy-number alterations in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4585–4590.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Walker BA, Leone PE, Chiecchio L, Dickens NJ, Jenner MW, Boyd KD et al. A compendium of myeloma-associated chromosomal copy number abnormalities and their prognostic value. Blood 2010; 116: e56–e65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boyd K, Ross F, Walker BA, Wardell CP, Tapper WJ, Chiecchio L et al. Mapping of chromosome 1p deletions in myeloma identifies FAM46C at 1p12 and CDKN2C at 1p32.3 as being genes in regions associated with adverse survival. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17: 7776–7784.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Qazilbash MH, Saliba RM, Ahmed B, Parikh G, Mendoza F, Ashraf N et al. Deletion of the short arm of chromosome 1 (del 1p) is a strong predictor of poor outcome in myeloma patients undergoing an autotransplant. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2007; 13: 1066–1072.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leone PE, Walker BA, Jenner MW, Chiecchio L, Dagrada G, Protheroe RK et al. Deletions of CDKN2C in multiple myeloma: biological and clinical implications. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 6033–6041.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Moreau P, Charbonnel C, Garban F, Hulin C et al. Genetic abnormalities and survival in multiple myeloma: the experience of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome. Blood 2007; 109: 3489–3495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schemper M, Smith TL . A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 343–346.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is partially supported by a grant from the French Institut National du Cancer (INCa), and by a grant from the American NIH (PO1-155258).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H Avet-Loiseau.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Presented in abstract form at the 54th annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Atlanta, GA, 11 December 2012.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hebraud, B., Leleu, X., Lauwers-Cances, V. et al. Deletion of the 1p32 region is a major independent prognostic factor in young patients with myeloma: the IFM experience on 1195 patients. Leukemia 28, 675–679 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2013.225

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2013.225

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links