What are the stages of myeloma, and how does this affect care? Dr. Abdullah Khan, a myeloma specialist, reviews how myeloma is staged, which genetic markers may affect risk, and the impact of staging on treatment decisions.
Dr. Abdullah Khan is a hematologist specializing in multiple myeloma and plasma cell disorders at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – The James. Dr. Khan is also an assistant professor in the Division of Hematology at The Ohio State University. Learn more about Dr. Khan.
How does staging affect treatment option?
Staging is done by two methods. The older method is the international staging system, abbreviated as ISS. And then there’s the newer revised ISS, or RISS.
The patients are assigned stages one to three. To determine the ISS you need lab values for the beta-2 microglobulin and albumin. For the revised ISS, you add on the lab value for LDH, lactate dehydrogenase, and you also add in the chromosome risk profile. So, there are certain genetic changes that predict a more aggressive myeloma. And the ones added to the revised ISS staging system are translocation 4;14, translocation 14;16, and deletion 17p.
So, that’s the ISS stage and the revised ISS stage. There are also other factors patient providers look into when determining the risk profile for patients. So, that might include other genetic changes.
One that is gaining a bit more traction right now is something called gain 1q, or amplification 1q, so more than one copy of part a chromosome. Some patients might have myeloma that doesn’t start, and the bone marrow might be found outside of the bones. And that’s called extramedullary disease, and sometimes that’s kind of high-risk. And some people have so much bone marrow plasma cells that it actually spills into their bloodstream. So, they might have high circulating plasma cells. Anyway, this will give information on staging.
And in terms of how it affects treatment option, I’ll give maybe two examples. Let’s say in case one we have a 40-year-old patient high-risk multiple myeloma. The high risk portends a poorer prognosis, meaning the outcomes might not be as good as someone with a standard myeloma. So, in that case, I might try to do or use the most aggressive treatment option in order to maximize treatment responses because I know the overall outcome is poor.
I do all this while acknowledging maybe the chances of having side effects might be higher, but that might be an acceptable tradeoff.
In case two, I’ll flip to an 80-year-old with standard risk cytogenetics.
So, I predict their myeloma to behave standard. In this case, I might try to use a regimen with a more acceptable safety profile, because the predicted response to treatment is anyways very good. So, I don’t want to hurt them in the process of getting their myeloma in remission.
I’ll also say this. My practice pattern at The Ohio State University might be a little different than someone on the East Coast or West Coast, and that’s okay. We all have our experiences with the different treatment regimens, but we all have the same goal of being as aggressive as we can while being mindful of side effects.