PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 19, 2026Haematologica0 citationsOpen Access

P18 | Monoclonal and Polyclonal Circulating Plasma Cells Are Associated With Disease Dissemination in Multiple Myeloma

IVI. VigliottaAVA. VaracalliMTM. Talarico

Key Points

  • The study aims to understand the relationship between circulating plasma cells and disease dissemination in multiple myeloma.
  • Enrolled 140 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients.
  • Collected bone marrow and peripheral blood samples for analysis.
  • Utilized diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-FDG PET imaging to assess disease dissemination.
  • Quantified circulating plasma cells through multiparametric flow cytometry.
  • Circulating plasma cells detected in 80% of patients, with 74% having monoclonal cells.
  • Patients with circulating plasma cells displayed worse clinical features and higher genomic risk.
  • Imaging showed correlation between presence of circulating plasma cells and higher disease severity, including increased focal lesions.
  • Monoclonal circulating plasma cells linked to poorer outcomes compared to polyclonal cells.

Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological malignancy characterized by clonal expansion of plasma cells (PCs) in the bone marrow (BM), with occasional detection in peripheral blood (PB) as circulating plasma cells (CPCs). Although patient (pt) outcomes have markedly improved over the last decade due to novel therapeutic strategies, most pts eventually relapse. This may reflect the ability of BM-resident PCs to escape the BM niche, giving rise to CPC clones that promote extramedullary spread and systemic disease dissemination. This study aimed to investigate the association between CPCs and disease dissemination assessed by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and 18F-FDG PET (PET), and to compare pts with aberrant monoclonal CPCs (mCPCs) versus polyclonal CPCs (pCPCs). A total of 140 newly diagnosed (ND) MM pts were enrolled. BM aspirates and PB samples were collected at diagnosis together with DWI, PET, and baseline clinical and genomic data. CPCs were quantified and characterized by multiparametric flow cytometry with a sensitivity ≥10⁻⁵. pCPCs were defined by a cytoplasmic Igκ/Igλ ratio between 0.5 and 4. CPCs were detected in 112/140 pts (80%), with a median frequency of 0.02% (range 0.002–17.84%), while 28 pts (20%) had no detectable CPCs. Among CPCs-positive pts, 83 (74%) harbored mCPCs (median 0.025%, range 0.002–17.84%) and 29 (26%) had pCPCs (median 0.018%, range 0.002–0.34%). Pts with CPCs showed higher genomic risk according to the IMWG Consensus Genomic Staging (CGS; p=0.044) and worse biochemical parameters, including lower hemoglobin, higher calcium, reduced albumin, and increased β2-microglobulin (p10 (p=0.004) DWI focal lesions, particularly in the extremities (p0.02%) correlated with high-risk CGS (p=0.026), PET positivity (p=0.025), extremity involvement on DWI (p<0.0001), and lack of CD56 expression (p=0.022). Importantly, pCPCs were also associated with adverse imaging features compared to pts without CPCs (p=0.035). Finally, despite the limitations of a short follow-up, the presence of CPCs, both mCPCs and pCPCs, appears to be associated with higher risk of relapse (p=0.05). To date, 23 pts have relapsed: 16 out of 83 (19%) mCPCs pts, 5 out of 29 (17%) pCPCs pts, and 2 out of 28 (7%) pts without detectable CPCs. In conclusion, the presence of CPCs significantly correlates with more widespread disease and increased skeletal involvement, suggesting the role of these cells in driving dissemination and progression in MM. Interestingly, even the presence of polyclonal CPCs was associated with a worse clinical profile compared to pts without detectable CPCs at diagnosis.Acknowledgments. AIRC19-IG22059, BolognaAIL OdV, RC2025-2797269.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Vigliotta et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e4702d010ef96374d8d753https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2026.s2.14082
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper