Role of Flow Cytometry in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Plasma Cell Myeloma

Surgical Pathology Clinics

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 101-116

  Olteanu, Horatiu ^a  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Flow cytometry; MGUS; Minimal residual disease; Myeloma; Plasma cells

Indexed keywords

MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY; TUMOR MARKER;

CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; DISEASE MARKER; FLOW CYTOMETRY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMMUNOPHENOTYPING; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; PLASMA CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; IMMUNOLOGY; IMMUNOTHERAPY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS;

DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FLOW CYTOMETRY; HUMANS; IMMUNOPHENOTYPING; IMMUNOTHERAPY; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 84959212384     PISSN: 18759181     EISSN: 18759157     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.path.2015.09.009     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. McKenna R.W., Kyle R.A., Kuehl W.M., et al. Plasma cell neoplasms. WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissue 2008, 200-213. IARC, Lyon (France). 4th edition. S.H. Swerdlow, E. Campo, N.L. Harris (Eds.).
2. International Myeloma Working Group Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 2003, 121:749-757.
3. Kyle R.A., Rajkumar S.V. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009, 23:3-9.
4. Kyle R.A., Therneau T.M., Rajkumar S.V., et al. Prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 2006, 354:1362-1369.
5. Dispenzieri A., Katzmann J.A., Kyle R.A., et al. Prevalence and risk of progression of light-chain monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: a retrospective population-based cohort study. Lancet 2010, 375:1721-1728.
6. Kyle R.A., Therneau T.M., Rajkumar S.V., et al. A long-term study of prognosis in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 2002, 346:564-569.
7. Turesson I., Kovalchik S.A., Pfeiffer R.M., et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and risk of lymphoid and myeloid malignancies: 728 cases followed up to 30 years in Sweden. Blood 2014, 123:338-345.
8. Kyle R.A., Remstein E.D., Therneau T.M., et al. Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:2582-2590.
9. Rajkumar S.V., Dimopoulos M.A., Palumbo A., et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014, 15:e538-e548.
10. Rajkumar S.V., Landgren O., Mateos M.V. Smoldering multiple myeloma. Blood 2015, 125:3069-3075.
11. Rajkumar S.V., Larson D., Kyle R.A. Diagnosis of smoldering multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2011, 365:474-475.
12. Kastritis E., Terpos E., Moulopoulos L., et al. Extensive bone marrow infiltration and abnormal free light chain ratio identifies patients with asymptomatic myeloma at high risk for progression to symptomatic disease. Leukemia 2013, 27:947-953.
13. Larsen J.T., Kumar S.K., Dispenzieri A., et al. Serum free light chain ratio as a biomarker for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2013, 27:941-946.
14. Hillengass J., Fechtner K., Weber M.A., et al. Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:1606-1610.
15. Kastritis E., Moulopoulos L.A., Terpos E., et al. The prognostic importance of the presence of more than one focal lesion in spine MRI of patients with asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2014, 28:2402-2403.
16. Bianchi G., Kyle R.A., Larson D.R., et al. High levels of peripheral blood circulating plasma cells as a specific risk factor for progression of smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2013, 27:680-685.
17. Perez-Persona E., Vidriales M.B., Mateo G., et al. New criteria to identify risk of progression in monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance and smoldering multiple myeloma based on multiparameter flow cytometry analysis of bone marrow plasma cells. Blood 2007, 110:2586-2592.
18. Mateos M.V., Hernandez M.T., Giraldo P., et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2013, 369:438-447.
19. Perez-Persona E., Mateo G., Garcia-Sanz R., et al. Risk of progression in smouldering myeloma and monoclonal gammopathies of unknown significance: comparative analysis of the evolution of monoclonal component and multiparameter flow cytometry of bone marrow plasma cells. Br J Haematol 2010, 148:110-114.
20. Paiva B., Vidriales M.B., Perez J.J., et al. Multiparameter flow cytometry quantification of bone marrow plasma cells at diagnosis provides more prognostic information than morphological assessment in myeloma patients. Haematologica 2009, 94:1599-1602.
21. Paiva B., Vidriales M.B., Cervero J., et al. Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 2008, 112:4017-4023.
22. Paiva B., Almeida J., Perez-Andres M., et al. Utility of flow cytometry immunophenotyping in multiple myeloma and other clonal plasma cell-related disorders. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2010, 78:239-252.
23. Mateo G., Montalban M.A., Vidriales M.B., et al. Prognostic value of immunophenotyping in multiple myeloma: a study by the PETHEMA/GEM cooperative study groups on patients uniformly treated with high-dose therapy. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:2737-2744.
24. Rawstron A.C., Orfao A., Beksac M., et al. Report of the European Myeloma Network on multiparametric flow cytometry in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Haematologica 2008, 93:431-438.
25. Raja K.R., Kovarova L., Hajek R. Review of phenotypic markers used in flow cytometric analysis of MGUS and MM, and applicability of flow cytometry in other plasma cell disorders. Br J Haematol 2010, 149:334-351.
26. Frebet E., Abraham J., Genevieve F., et al. A GEIL flow cytometry consensus proposal for quantification of plasma cells: application to differential diagnosis between MGUS and myeloma. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2011, 80:176-185.
27. Paiva B., van Dongen J.J., Orfao A. New criteria for response assessment: role of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Blood 2015, 125:3059-3068.
28. Keeney M., Halley J.G., Rhoads D.D., et al. Marked variability in reported minimal residual disease lower level of detection of 4 hematolymphoid neoplasms: a survey of participants in the College of American Pathologists flow cytometry proficiency testing program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015, 139:1276-1280.
29. Arroz M., Came N., Lin P., et al. Consensus guidelines on plasma cell myeloma minimal residual disease analysis and reporting. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2015, [Epub ahead of print].
30. Stetler-Stevenson M., Paiva B., Stoolman L., et al. Consensus guidelines for myeloma minimal residual disease sample staining and data acquisition. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2015, [Epub ahead of print].
31. Olteanu H., Harrington A.M., Hari P., et al. CD200 expression in plasma cell myeloma. Br J Haematol 2011, 153:408-411.
32. Paiva B., Gutierrez N.C., Chen X., et al. Clinical significance of CD81 expression by clonal plasma cells in high-risk smoldering and symptomatic multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia 2012, 26:1862-1869.
33. Bataille R., Pellat-Deceunynck C., Robillard N., et al. CD117 (c-kit) is aberrantly expressed in a subset of MGUS and multiple myeloma with unexpectedly good prognosis. Leuk Res 2008, 32:379-382.
34. Alapat D., Coviello-Malle J., Owens R., et al. Diagnostic usefulness and prognostic impact of CD200 expression in lymphoid malignancies and plasma cell myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol 2012, 137:93-100.
35. Smock K.J., Perkins S.L., Bahler D.W. Quantitation of plasma cells in bone marrow aspirates by flow cytometric analysis compared with morphologic assessment. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007, 131:951-955.
36. Cogbill C.H., Spears M.D., vanTuinen P., et al. Morphologic and cytogenetic variables affect the flow cytometric recovery of plasma cell myeloma cells in bone marrow aspirates. Int J Lab Hematol 2015, [Epub ahead of print].
37. van Dongen J.J., Lhermitte L., Bottcher S., et al. EuroFlow antibody panels for standardized n-dimensional flow cytometric immunophenotyping of normal, reactive and malignant leukocytes. Leukemia 2012, 26:1908-1975.
38. Costa E.S., Pedreira C.E., Barrena S., et al. Automated pattern-guided principal component analysis vs expert-based immunophenotypic classification of B-cell chronic lymphoproliferative disorders: a step forward in the standardization of clinical immunophenotyping. Leukemia 2010, 24:1927-1933.
39. Seegmiller A.C., Xu Y., McKenna R.W., et al. Immunophenotypic differentiation between neoplastic plasma cells in mature B-cell lymphoma vs plasma cell myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol 2007, 127:176-181.
40. Olteanu H., Harrington A.M., Kroft S.H. CD200 expression in plasma cells of nonmyeloma immunoproliferative disorders: clinicopathologic features and comparison with plasma cell myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol 2012, 138:867-876.
41. Morice W.G., Chen D., Kurtin P.J., et al. Novel immunophenotypic features of marrow lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma and correlation with Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Mod Pathol 2009, 22:807-816.
42. Rosado F.G., Morice W.G., He R., et al. Immunophenotypic features by multiparameter flow cytometry can help distinguish low grade B-cell lymphomas with plasmacytic differentiation from plasma cell proliferative disorders with an unrelated clonal B-cell process. Br J Haematol 2015, 169:368-376.
43. Ocqueteau M., Orfao A., Almeida J., et al. Immunophenotypic characterization of plasma cells from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance patients. Implications for the differential diagnosis between MGUS and multiple myeloma. Am J Pathol 1998, 152:1655-1665.
44. Paiva B., Vidriales M.B., Mateo G., et al. The persistence of immunophenotypically normal residual bone marrow plasma cells at diagnosis identifies a good prognostic subgroup of symptomatic multiple myeloma patients. Blood 2009, 114:4369-4372.
45. Olteanu H., Wang H.Y., Chen W., et al. Immunophenotypic studies of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. BMC Clin Pathol 2008, 8:13.
46. Palumbo A., Avet-Loiseau H., Oliva S., et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2015, 33(26):2863-2869.
47. Fonseca R., Bergsagel P.L., Drach J., et al. International Myeloma Working Group molecular classification of multiple myeloma: spotlight review. Leukemia 2009, 23:2210-2221.
48. Fonseca R., Barlogie B., Bataille R., et al. Genetics and cytogenetics of multiple myeloma: a workshop report. Cancer Res 2004, 64:1546-1558.
49. Mateo G., Castellanos M., Rasillo A., et al. Genetic abnormalities and patterns of antigenic expression in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2005, 11:3661-3667.
50. Walters M., Olteanu H., Van Tuinen P., et al. CD23 expression in plasma cell myeloma is specific for abnormalities of chromosome 11, and is associated with primary plasma cell leukaemia in this cytogenetic sub-group. Br J Haematol 2010, 149:292-293.
51. Buonaccorsi J.N., Kroft S.H., Harrington A.M., et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of the impact of CD23 expression in plasma cell myeloma with t(11;14)(q13;q32). Ann Diagn Pathol 2011, 15:385-388.
52. Sahara N., Takeshita A., Shigeno K., et al. Clinicopathological and prognostic characteristics of CD56-negative multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2002, 117:882-885.
53. Moreau P., Robillard N., Avet-Loiseau H., et al. Patients with CD45 negative multiple myeloma receiving high-dose therapy have a shorter survival than those with CD45 positive multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2004, 89:547-551.
54. Morice W.G., Hanson C.A., Kumar S., et al. Novel multi-parameter flow cytometry sensitively detects phenotypically distinct plasma cell subsets in plasma cell proliferative disorders. Leukemia 2007, 21:2043-2046.
55. Lin P., Owens R., Tricot G., et al. Flow cytometric immunophenotypic analysis of 306 cases of multiple myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol 2004, 121:482-488.
56. Tembhare P.R., Yuan C.M., Venzon D., et al. Flow cytometric differentiation of abnormal and normal plasma cells in the bone marrow in patients with multiple myeloma and its precursor diseases. Leuk Res 2014, 38:371-376.
57. Paiva B., Paino T., Sayagues J.M., et al. Detailed characterization of multiple myeloma circulating tumor cells shows unique phenotypic, cytogenetic, functional, and circadian distribution profile. Blood 2013, 122:3591-3598.
58. Moreaux J., Hose D., Reme T., et al. CD200 is a new prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Blood 2006, 108:4194-4197.
59. Gonsalves W.I., Rajkumar S.V., Gupta V., et al. Quantification of clonal circulating plasma cells in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: implications for redefining high-risk myeloma. Leukemia 2014, 28:2060-2065.
60. Gonsalves W.I., Morice W.G., Rajkumar V., et al. Quantification of clonal circulating plasma cells in relapsed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2014, 167:500-505.
61. Rawstron A.C., Gregory W.M., de Tute R.M., et al. Minimal residual disease in myeloma by flow cytometry: independent prediction of survival benefit per log reduction. Blood 2015, 125:1932-1935.
62. Paiva B., Puig N., Garcia-Sanz R., et al. Is this the time to introduce minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma clinical practice?. Clin Cancer Res 2015, 21:2001-2008.
63. Rawstron A.C., Pavia B., Stetler-Stevenson M. Assessment of minimal residual disease in myeloma and the need for a consensus approach. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2015, [Epub ahead of print].
64. Gormley N.J., Turley D.M., Dickey J.S., et al. Regulatory perspective on minimal residual disease flow cytometry testing in multiple myeloma. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2015, [Epub ahead of print].
65. Paiva B., Chandia M., Puig N., et al. The prognostic value of multiparameter flow cytometry minimal residual disease assessment in relapsed multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2015, 100:e53-e55.
66. Durie B.G., Harousseau J.L., Miguel J.S., et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006, 20:1467-1473.
67. Martinez-Lopez J., Blade J., Mateos M.V., et al. Long-term prognostic significance of response in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Blood 2011, 118:529-534.
68. Martinez-Lopez J., Lahuerta J.J., Pepin F., et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood 2014, 123:3073-3079.
69. Puig N., Sarasquete M.E., Balanzategui A., et al. Critical evaluation of ASO RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A comparative analysis with flow cytometry. Leukemia 2014, 28:391-397.
70. Flores-Montero J., de Tute R., Paiva B., et al. Immunophenotype of normal vs. myeloma plasma cells: toward antibody panel specifications for MRD detection in multiple myeloma. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2015, [Epub ahead of print].
71. Spears M.D., Olteanu H., Kroft S.H., et al. The immunophenotypic stability of plasma cell myeloma by flow cytometry. Int J Lab Hematol 2011, 33:483-491.
72. Raje N., Longo D.L. Monoclonal antibodies in multiple myeloma come of age. N Engl J Med 2015, 373(13):1264-1266.
73. Pojero F., Flores-Montero J., Sanoja L., et al. Utility of CD54, CD229, and CD319 for the identification of plasma cells in patients with clonal plasma cell diseases. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2015, [Epub ahead of print].
74. Lokhorst H.M., Plesner T., Laubach J.P., et al. Targeting CD38 with Daratumumab monotherapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2015, 373(13):1207-1219.
75. Lonial S., Dimopoulos M., Palumbo A., et al. Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2015, 373:621-631.