ABSTRACT
Objective:To explore the risk stratification and prognostic significance of loss of chromosome Y (LOY) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).Methods:The clinical data of 193 male patients with newly diagnosed MM admitted to Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University from January 2018 to January 2020 were analyzed retrospectively and divided into a normal karyotype group(178) and a LOY karyotype group (15) according to the results of their primary conventional cytogenetics. Rank sum test, 2×2 chi-square test and independent sample t-test were used to compare laboratory findings, such as liver and kidney function, immunohistochemistry and cytogenetics, treatment efficacy and survival prognosis, between the two groups. The clinical prognostic significance of LOY was summarized through survival analysis and Cox regression. Results:Among the newly diagnosed male MM patients, 8%(15/178) were confirmed with LOY cases. The proportion of patients with Revised International Staging System(R-ISS) stage Ⅲ was significantly higher in the LOY group (8/15) than that in the normal karyotype group (40/178)(χ 2=7.052, P<0.01). A higher proportion of 1q21 amplification also occurred in the LOY group (10/13 vs 77/162)(χ 2=4.159, P<0.05). The proportion of complete response(CR)/stringent complete response(sCR) in the normal karyotype group after the fourth chemotherapy (63/171) was significantly higher than that in the LOY group (1/15)(χ 2=5.564, P<0.05). The proportion of progressive disease (PD) was lower in the normal karyotype group (16/171 vs 4/15) (χ 2=4.306, P<0.05). The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) of MM patients for the LOY group was significantly shorter compared to that for the normal karyotype group ( Z=?3.201, P<0.01). Univariate survival analysis showed that PFS was significantly shorter in newly diagnosed MM patients with Creatinine(Cr)≥93 μmol/L, β 2-microglobulin (β 2-MG)≥4.0 mg/L, serum free light chain(sFLC)<0.06, bone marrow plasma cells (BMPC)≥30%, R-ISS stage Ⅲ, failure to achieve CR/sCR after the fourth chemotherapy, with LOY, 1q21 amplification, P53 deletion and t(4;14) ( P<0.05). Cox regression analysis showed that Cr≥93 μmol/L( HR=4.460, 95% CI 1.615-12.314, P=0.004), sFLC<0.06( HR=2.873, 95% CI 1.206-6.849, P=0.017), failure to achieve CR/sCR after the fourth chemotherapy( HR=3.522, 95% CI 1.437-8.634, P=0.006)and with LOY( HR=3.485, 95% CI 1.473-8.249, P=0.006)were independent risk factors for PFS in newly diagnosed MM patients. Conclusions:LOY is an independent risk factor for poor prognosis. It is important for the clinical outcome and prognosis of patients with newly diagnosed MM, and may become a novel clinical assessment indicator.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Yupingfeng powder combined with second- generation antihistamines versus second-generation antihistamines for chronic urticaria(CU)systematically,and to provide evidence-based reference for clinical treatment for CU. METHODS:Retrieved from PubMed,Embase,The Cochrane Library,CJFD,VIP and CBM,RCT about therapeutic efficacy(total response rate,cure rate,recurrence rate)and safety(the incidence of ADR)of Yupingfeng combined with second-generation antihistamines(trial group)versus second-generation antihistamines(control group) in the treatment of CU were collected. The data extraction was performed for included clinical studies,and Meta-analysis was performed by using Rev Man 5.3 statistical software after quality evaluation with Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 evaluation criteria. RESULTS:A total of 34 RCTs were enrolled,involved 3 405 patients in total. Results of Meta-analysis showed that the total response rate [OR=4.02,95%CI(3.03,5.34),P<0.001],cure rate [OR=2.25,95%CI(1.95,2.60),P<0.001] and recurrence rate [OR=0.33,95%CI(0.26,0.42),P<0.001] of trial group were significantly better than those of control group,with statistical significance. There was no statistical significance in the incidence of ADR between 2 groups [OR=0.98,95%CI(0.71,1.37),P=0.92]. CONCLUSIONS:For CU therapy,Yupingfeng powder combined with second-generation antihistamines is better than second-generation antihistamines alone in improving total response rate and cure rate,reducing recurrence rate,both have similar safety.