Multicenter study reveals that circulating tumor cells at or above two percent define ultra-high-risk multiple myeloma, suggesting targeted quadruplet therapy improves survival.
PURPOSE: Previous studies have shown that ≥2% circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in multiple myeloma are associated with a prognosis similar to primary plasma cell leukemia. This study aims to examine this ultra-high-risk patient subset and evaluate their clinical outcomes in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: morphological assessment on peripheral blood smears, using a 2% cutoff to stratify patients into <2% and ≥2% CTCs groups. We then evaluated clinical outcomes across these groups. RESULTS: Patients with ≥2% CTCs constitute an ultra-high-risk subgroup, with outcomes resembling those of primary plasma cell leukemia. Survival outcomes improved for patients receiving daratumumab-based quadruplet therapy. Single autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) partially improved outcomes for patients with ≥2% CTCs. Achieving complete remission (CR) after induction treatment did not confer a better prognosis for this population. Furthermore, one high-risk cytogenetic abnormality (HRA) worsened outcomes in the <2% CTC group, while ≥2 HRA were associated with poorer outcomes in the ≥2% CTC group. Concurrent 1q21+ and other HRA further conferred a worse prognosis. In de novo extramedullary extraosseous (EME) multiple myeloma, defined as patients presenting with soft tissue or visceral plasmacytomas not connected to bone at initial diagnosis, ≥2% CTCs remained a strong predictor of poor prognosis. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that patients with ≥2% CTCs represent a distinct ultra-high-risk subgroup in multiple myeloma and warrant separate consideration. VRD, IRD, DVRD, and DRD were reliable choices as frontline therapies for patients with <2% CTCs. Daratumumab-based quadruplet therapy may be a promising option for patients with ≥2% CTCs. Further research should continue to explore this specific aspect in greater depth.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: