MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2970658501 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-117819

Monoclonal Gammopathy of Clinical Significance - a Single Center Experience

2018· article· en· W2970658501 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Holly Lee, Lesley Street, Jason Tay, Jennifer Grossman, John F. Thaell, Dawn Goodyear, Sylvia McCulloch, Peter Duggan, Paola Neri, Víctor H. Jiménez‐Zepeda

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMultiple myelomaMonoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significanceHematologyInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyNomogramPediatricsOncologyMonoclonalImmunology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Monoclonal gammopathy of clinical significance (MGCS) is a newly described entity that defines clinical conditions and organ damage resulting from the effects of monoclonal proteins (Fermand et al., 2018). In MGCS, the underlying clone burden resembles an MGUS state, and does not meet criteria for multiple myeloma or lymphoma. A wide spectrum of conditions has been described in MGCS (Fermand et al., 2018). In this retrospective study, our purpose was to identify the incidences of patients with MGCS at our hematology clinics. Methods We collaborated with three clinicians who see the majority of MGUS patients at the University of Calgary Medical Group clinics (UCMG). Patients who were referred and diagnosed with MGUS at the hematology clinic at UCMG since 2014 were assessed. The diagnosis of MGUS and MGCS were made based on consensus criteria (Rajkumar et al., 2014) and the recent publication (Fermand et al., 2018). Retrospective chart reviews were performed and cases with MGCS were analyzed. MGUS risk stratification score was calculated per previous reports (Katzmann et al., 2013; Kyle et al., 2018). Hematological response was assessed using the International Myeloma Working Group criteria (Rajkumar et al., 2014), and renal response was measured using KDIGO guidelines (Radhakrishnan & Cattran, 2012). Results A total of 606 MGUS patients were seen at our clinic from February 2014 to June 2018. Patients who had MGUS and co-existing conditions which met MGCS criteria (Fermand et al., 2018) were evaluated. There were 25 MGCS patients identified. Median age at diagnosis was 60, and 28% were female. Clinical characteristics are outlined in Table 1. Three patients had light chain MGUS. Among the non-light chain MGUS patients, there were 11 high-intermediate risk (55%), 1 intermediate risk (5%), 5 low-intermediate risk (25%), and 3 low risk MGUS (15%). At the time of analysis all patients were alive, and 3 patients have progressed. Median follow up was 2 years (0-16 years). Renal involvement was the most common with 14 patients having biopsy proven renal pathologies that met criteria for monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS) (Leung et al., 2012). Four patients had neuropathies, including Anti-MAG, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), distal acquired demyelinating symmetric neuropathy (DADS-M), and autonomic neuropathy. Three patients had skin manifestations (Schnitzler syndrome, necrobiotic xanthogranuloma, scleromyxedema), 1 patient had corneal involvement (crystalline keratopathy), 1 patient had gastrointestinal manifestation (mixed light chain deposition disease), 1 patient had acquired C1 esterase inhibitor deficiency with angioedema, and 1 patient was diagnosed with Sweet syndrome in 1993 which had led to her original monoclonal gammopathy workup. Five out of the 14 patients with MGRS received plasma cell directed chemotherapy, and 1 patient with crystalloid podocytopathy underwent auto-stem cell transplant. Of these 5 patients, 4 had renal response. Treatment for other MGCS cases are indicated in Table 1. Discussion and Conclusion Our series demonstrates that cases of MGCS represent a small minority within our larger MGUS cohort. The most common organ involvements seen in our MGCS patients were renal, nerve and skin. One of the major diagnostic challenges is confirming that the organ dysfunction and MGUS co-exist by true association, and not by coincidence. In our patient cohort, tissue biopsies were obtained when possible (all renal, skin, and GI cases), and others were diagnosed through review with local experts and relying on published literature. The distinction of MGCS from MGUS is important, as it may change treatment decisions. In renal diseases associated with monoclonal gammopathy, referred to as MGRS, renal prognosis is poor and clone directed treatment is associated with improved renal outcomes (Fermand et al., 2013). As prospective or randomized trials are unavailable for MGRS or MGCS, the treatments given at our center were determined on a case-by-case basis relying on expert opinions, local experiences, and a recent guideline (Fermand et al., 2013). Interdisciplinary care is required for both the diagnosis and management of MGCS. Further studies with long term follow-up are needed. Disclosures McCulloch: Takeda: Other: Travel expenses; Celgene: Honoraria. Neri:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,101
Tête enseignante GPT0,401
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→