Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr;37(4):288-91.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2016.04.008.

[The significance of serum IgD quantitation for evaluation of clinical efficacy in IgD multiple myeloma]

[Article in Chinese]
Jie He  1 , Hui Zhang, Hua Jiang, Tianmei Zeng, Hong Chang, Jian Hou
Affiliations

[The significance of serum IgD quantitation for evaluation of clinical efficacy in IgD multiple myeloma]

[Article in Chinese]
Jie He et al. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2016 Apr.

Abstract
in English, Chinese

Objective: To investigate the significance of serum IgD quantitation in evaluation of clinical efficacy in IgD myeloma.

Methods: Serum IgD and free light chain (sFLC) levels were determined by immune scatter turbidimetry with SPA plus analysis machine in 29 patients with IgD multiple myeloma (MM) achieving VGPR or better response following previous treatments. The concurrent immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) results were also incorporated and analyzed.

Results: Increased IgD levels were detected in 1 of 12 patients achieving sCR, 2 of 5 patients achieving CR and 4 of 12 patients achieving VGPR, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 38.5 months, 34.1 months and 15.5 months for patients achieving sCR, CR and VGPR, respectively, with a significant difference between sCR and VGPR groups (P=0.022), and between CR and VGPR groups (P=0.018). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) among sCR, CR and VGPR groups (P>0.05). The median PFS were 7.8, 33.7 and 43.9 months, respectively for the patients with both abnormal sFLC ratios and IgD levels (6 cases, Group A), with either abnormal sFLC ratios or increased IgD levels (10 cases, Group B) or with normal sFLC ratios and IgD levels (13 cases, Group C). A significant PFS benefit of Group A over Group C was found (P=0.033), and no differences in terms of OS among three groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion: IgD levels may remain abnormal in IgD MM patients who have achieved VGPR or better response, and IgD quantitation represented a useful assay complementary to the current lab examinations. IgD quantitation assay was of significance in clinical efficacy evaluation and survival judgement, and should be incorporated into the evaluation parameters used for IgD MM in addition to sFLC and IFE assays.

目的: 评价血清IgD定量检测在IgD型多发性骨髓瘤（MM）患者疗效评估中的意义。

方法: 纳入29例临床疗效达到严格意义完全缓解（sCR）、完全缓解（CR）和非常好的部分缓解（VGPR）的IgD型MM患者，采用全自动SPAplus特定蛋白分析仪（散射免疫比浊法）进行IgD定量及血清游离轻链（sFLC）检测，结合同期血清免疫固定电泳（IFE）M蛋白检测结果评价IgD定量检测在疗效评估中的意义。

结果: ①sCR组（12例）、CR组（5例）、VGPR组（12例）分别有1、2、4例患者IgD定量结果异常升高。②全部29例患者中位随访24.7（8.6~41.5）个月，sCR组、CR组、VGPR组的中位无进展生存（PFS）期分别为38.5、34.1、15.5个月，sCR组与VGPR组差异有统计学意义（P=0.022），CR组与VGPR组差异有统计学意义（P=0.018），sCR组与CR组差异无统计学意义（P=0.846）；sCR组、CR组、VGPR组的总生存（OS）期分别为41.5、37.7、19.1个月，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。③6例患者sFLC比值及IgD定量均异常升高（A组），10例患者sFLC比值异常或IgD定量异常升高（B组），13例患者sFLC比值及IgD定量正常（C组）。A组PFS期短于C组（7.8个月对43.9个月，P=0.033），B组与A、C组差异无统计学意义（33.7个月对7.8个月，P=0.404；33.7个月对43.9个月，P=0.121）。A、B、C组的OS期分别为11.8、37.5、47.1个月，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。

结论: 达到VGPR及以上疗效的IgD型MM患者仍存在IgD水平异常；联合应用IgD定量与sFLC及IFE检测可预测VGPR及以上疗效IgD型MM患者的PFS。

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

图1
图1. 不同疗效IgD型多发性骨髓瘤患者的无进展生存曲线
sCR：严格意义完全缓解；CR：完全缓解；VGPR：非常好的部分缓解
图2
图2. 游离轻链比值（rFLC）及IgD水平对疗效达非常好的部分缓解及以上IgD型多发性骨髓瘤患者无进展生存的影响
A组：rFLC及IgD定量均异常升高（rFLC>1.650，IgD>132.10 mg/L）；B组：rFLC异常（>1.650或<0.260）或IgD异常升高（>132.10 mg/L）；C组：rFLC及IgD均正常
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wang H, Gao C, Xu L, et al. Laboratory characterizations on 2007 cases of monoclonal gammopathies in East China[J] Cell Mol Immunol. 2008;5(4):293–298. doi: 10.1038/cmi.2008.36. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma[J] Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):e538–548. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pandey S, Kyle RA. Unusual myelomas: a review of IgD and IgE variants[J] Oncology (Williston Park) 2013;27(8):798–803. - PubMed
    1. Zagouri F, Kastritis E, Symeonidis AS, et al. Immunoglobulin D myeloma: clinical features and outcome in the era of novel agents[J] Eur J Haematol. 2014;92(4):308–312. doi: 10.1111/ejh.12255. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma[J] Leukemia. 2006;20(9):1467–1473. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404284. - DOI - PubMed

Substances