TY - JOUR
T1 - Advances in MGUS diagnosis, risk stratification, and management
T2 - introducing myeloma-defining genomic events
AU - Landgren, Ola
N1 - Funding Information:
The author thanks Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Core Grant (P30 CA240139) for grant support of this work. He also thanks Paula and Rodger Riney Foundation for generous support of his research program.
Funding Information:
Ola Landgren has received grant support from National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS), Rising Tide Foundation, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF), International Myeloma Foundation (IMF), Paula and Rodger Riney Foundation, Perelman Family Foundation, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Glen-mark, Seattle Genetics, and Karyopharm; has received honoraria for scientifc talks/participated in advisory boards for Adaptive, Amgen, Binding Site, BMS, Celgene, Cellectis, Glenmark, Jans-sen, Juno, and Pfzer; and served on Independent Data Monitoring Committees for international randomized trials by Takeda, Merck, Janssen, and Theradex.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology
PY - 2021/12/10
Y1 - 2021/12/10
N2 - In the 1960s, Dr Jan Waldenström argued that patients who had monoclonal proteins without any symptoms or evidence of end-organ damage represented a benign monoclonal gammopathy. In 1978, Dr Robert Kyle introduced the concept of “monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance” (MGUS) given that, at diagnosis, it was not possible with available methods (ie, serum protein electrophoresis to define the concentration of M-proteins and microscopy to determine the plasma cell percentage in bone marrow aspirates) to determine which patients would ultimately progress to multiple myeloma. The application of low-input whole-genome sequencing (WGS) technology has circumvented previous problems related to volume of clonal plasma cells and contamination by normal plasma cells and allowed for the interrogation of the WGS landscape of MGUS. As discussed in this chapter, the distribution of genetic events reveals striking differences and the existence of 2 biologically and clinically distinct entities of asymptomatic monoclonal gammopathies. Thus, we already have genomic tools to identify “myeloma-defining genomic events,” and consequently, it is reasonable to consider updating our preferred terminologies. When the clinical field is ready to move forward, we should be able to consolidate current terminologies—from current 7 clinical categories: low-risk MGUS, intermediate-risk MGUS, high-risk MGUS, low-risk smoldering myeloma, intermediate-risk smoldering myeloma, high-risk smoldering myeloma, and multiple myeloma—to future 3 genomic-based categories: monoclonal gammopathy, early detection of multiple myeloma (in which myeloma-defining genomic events already have been acquired), and multiple myeloma (patients who are already progressing and clinically defined cases). Ongoing investigations will continue to advance the field.
AB - In the 1960s, Dr Jan Waldenström argued that patients who had monoclonal proteins without any symptoms or evidence of end-organ damage represented a benign monoclonal gammopathy. In 1978, Dr Robert Kyle introduced the concept of “monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance” (MGUS) given that, at diagnosis, it was not possible with available methods (ie, serum protein electrophoresis to define the concentration of M-proteins and microscopy to determine the plasma cell percentage in bone marrow aspirates) to determine which patients would ultimately progress to multiple myeloma. The application of low-input whole-genome sequencing (WGS) technology has circumvented previous problems related to volume of clonal plasma cells and contamination by normal plasma cells and allowed for the interrogation of the WGS landscape of MGUS. As discussed in this chapter, the distribution of genetic events reveals striking differences and the existence of 2 biologically and clinically distinct entities of asymptomatic monoclonal gammopathies. Thus, we already have genomic tools to identify “myeloma-defining genomic events,” and consequently, it is reasonable to consider updating our preferred terminologies. When the clinical field is ready to move forward, we should be able to consolidate current terminologies—from current 7 clinical categories: low-risk MGUS, intermediate-risk MGUS, high-risk MGUS, low-risk smoldering myeloma, intermediate-risk smoldering myeloma, high-risk smoldering myeloma, and multiple myeloma—to future 3 genomic-based categories: monoclonal gammopathy, early detection of multiple myeloma (in which myeloma-defining genomic events already have been acquired), and multiple myeloma (patients who are already progressing and clinically defined cases). Ongoing investigations will continue to advance the field.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122464652&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85122464652&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1182/hematology.2021000303
DO - 10.1182/hematology.2021000303
M3 - Article
C2 - 34889381
AN - SCOPUS:85122464652
VL - 2021
SP - 662
EP - 672
JO - Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program
JF - Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program
SN - 1520-4391
IS - 1
ER -