Несмотря на современные методы лечения: ретроспективное исследование 99 больные лейкемией первичной и вторичной плазменной клеток.

INTRODUCTION

Plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is a highly aggressive monoclonal gammopathy characterized by plasma cells circulating in the peripheral blood. It is usually divided into primary PCL (pPCL), when occurring de novo, or secondary PCL (sPCL), when a patient previously diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) undergoes leukemic transformation. Although first described over a century ago, 1 the diagnostic criteria for PCL were originally established by Kyle et al., in 1974. 2 In this seminal paper, PCL was defined by the presence of circulating plasma cells exceeding 2 × 10 9 /L and 20% of total white blood cells (WBC). However, these criteria were deemed too restrictive by many experts and, in 2013, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) determined that either one of these criteria was sufficient for PCL diagnosis. 3 In late 2021, the diagnostic criteria for PCL were once again updated by the IMWG to include patients with ≥5% circulating plasma cells, 4 following recent studies demonstrating that this lower threshold results in similar clinical outcomes. 5 , 6 , 7

To establish a diagnosis of PCL, it is currently recommended to assess circulating plasma cells by conventional microscopy. 4 Flow cytometry appears to be a good candidate to eventually replace manual differential count, as it is more accurate, can confirm clonality and predicts poor prognosis. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 However, flow cytometry precision varies greatly across instruments and further validation is required before being widely implemented. 4 , 12 Another promising tool for PCL diagnosis is transcriptome analysis. Recent studies have reported that MM and PCL have distinct gene expression profile and thus, transcriptome could be used to diagnose and stratify PCL. 12 , 13 , 14 As for flow cytometry, additional work is nevertheless needed before this newer approach can be applied outside of research protocols.

There is no agreed standard treatment for PCL. Until recently, both pPCL and sPCL patients were systematically excluded from prospective clinical trials and thus, treatments were extrapolated from MM regimens. In the last years, however, a few non‐randomized studies dedicated to PCL have been reported 15 , 16 , 17 and PCL patients are gradually included in high‐risk MM trials. 18 , 19 , 20 Based on these and other retrospective studies, many experts recommend the use of a proteasome inhibitor and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in eligible patients, as these treatments appear to be associated with improved survival. 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 For example, in the recent EMN12/HOVON‐129 trial, 16 the use of carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) as an induction regimen followed ASCT resulted in favorable survival compared to historical data. Nevertheless, patients included in this study, as in other clinical trials, were highly selected, and real‐life data regarding response to modern treatments are lacking. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to better evaluate the impact of newer therapies, usually studied in MM, on PCL survival in a general population.

Although studies consistently report a significantly poorer prognosis for PCL patients when compared to MM patients, 21 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 the causes are not fully understood. Few studies have focused on the clinical characteristics specific to PCL, therefore limiting our ability to better target treatments. With its overall survival (OS) of only a few months, 22 , 30 , 31 , 32 sPCL is often described as a late‐stage complication of heavily pretreated MM. However, it is currently unknown whether this disease originates from an already high‐risk MM or is the result of long‐term selection of an aggressive clone. To our knowledge, no research group has explored the characteristics of patients before their transformation to sPCL. For pPCL, a few research groups have noticed that some patients live significantly longer than expected, 14 , 24 but the reasons remain largely unknown. Our second goal was therefore to better understand the specificities of PCL by assessing the impact of various prognostic factors on survival and describing patients who eventually progress into sPCL at the time of MM diagnosis.

METHODS

Patients

We performed a retrospective, multicenter study of PCL patients diagnosed between January 2005 and December 2020 in eight academic centers in the Province of Québec, Canada. Patients were identified through electronic medical records. Inclusion criteria were circulating plasma cells ≥20% of total WBC and/or plasma cells count ≥2 × 10 9 /L. Patients were excluded if they received treatment for another malignancy after a diagnosis of PCL. The datalock date was July 1, 2022. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approval of this study was obtained from the Comité d'Éthique de la Recherche (research Ethics Boards) of the CHUM, the CHUQ, the CHUS, the Charles‐Le Moyne Hospital, the Jewish General Hospital, the Maisonneuve‐Rosemont Hospital and the Sacré‐Cœur de Montréal Hospital (multicentric approval number: MP‐31‐2022‐452).

Techniques

Plasma cells percentage was calculated using conventional microscopy of peripheral blood smears, bone marrow aspirates, and bone marrow biopsy. Cytogenetics aberrations were tested by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), with probes varying between institutions and throughout time. The number of patients tested for each cytogenetic abnormality is mentioned in the results and supplementary material sections. Immunophenotype was determined by flow cytometry of circulating or medullary plasma cells. CD38 and CD138 were consistently tested, but other markers (CD56, CD19, CD20, CD117, CD45) varied between institutions and throughout time.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics 28.0 and Excel 2016. Progression‐free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until progression or death whichever comes first. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis until death from any cause. OS and PFS were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method and compared by the log rank test. Median follow‐up was calculated using the reverse Kaplan–Meier method. Cox regression univariable and multivariable analyzes were used to assess the impact of various prognostic factors on OS and time to progression, the results of which are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% of confidence intervals (95% CI). Differences between subgroups were compared by using either the Chi‐square or Fisher exact statistical test. The results were considered significant if the p value was <0.05.

RESULTS

Population and patient characteristics

We identified 125 patients with a diagnosis of PCL (1.4% of our MM population), of whom 99 fulfilled our study criteria. These included 33 patients with pPCL and 66 with sPCL. Of the 26 excluded patients (10 pPCL and 16 sPCL), one was rejected due to concomitant malignancy while all others were excluded due to missing data (mainly elderly patients who declined investigations or patients whose main follow‐up was in another institution).

Baseline characteristics of pPCL and sPCL patients are shown in Table 1 . For sPCL patients, Table 1 also describes their clinical characteristics at the time of MM diagnosis. Among pPCL and sPCL, 63.6% of patients met both relative and absolute diagnostic criteria (circulating plasma cells ≥20% and ≥2 × 10 9 /L), 32.3% met only the relative criteria and 4.0% met only the absolute criteria. Circulating plasma cells were found in the peripheral blood of 11 patients with sPCL, at the time of their MM diagnosis. According to the most recent diagnostic criteria, six of these patients would now have been diagnosed with primary plasma cell leukemia (5%–19% of circulating plasma cells) and five would still be considered MM (1%–4% of circulating plasma cells).

MM characteristic and treatments before sPCL

For the 66 sPCL patients, the median time between initial MM diagnosis and leukemic progression was 27.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 12.7–41.6). Prior to MM diagnosis, seven patients had also been diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and seven patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). The median time to progression from MGUS to PCL and from SMM to PCL were 61.9 months (IQR, 50.6–90.6) and 21.2 months (IQR, 11.0–32.3), respectively.

The median number of lines of treatment prior to transformation was 2 (range 1–7). Overall, 28 patients (42.4%) underwent single ASCT and 4 (6.1%) received tandem ASCT‐allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT‐alloSCT). The median time to relapse after SCT was 11.9 months (IQR, 10.3–19.0). When analyzed by year of MM diagnosis (< 2013 vs. ≥2013), we observed no difference in the median time to relapse after SCT (respectively, 12.1 vs. 10.4 months, p = 0.348). In our cohort, single ASCT or tandem ASCT‐alloSCT did not result in significantly longer time to PCL progression when compared to those who received chemotherapy alone (31.6 vs. 22.9 months, p = 0.164). The treatments administered were highly heterogeneous (Table S1 ) therefore limiting our ability to assess their individual impact on progression or survival.

PCL treatments

The treatment plan, including decision to proceed to transplantation, was based on physician discretion and patient preference. The median number of treatment lines was 2 (range 1–9) for pPCL and 1 (range 0–5) for sPCL. Among pPCL patients, 30% (10/33) underwent single ASCT, 9% (3/33) underwent tandem ASCT and 6% (2/33) underwent tandem ASCT‐alloSCT. Patients with pPCL who underwent any type of SCT had a significant longer PFS (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16–0.76, p = 0.008) and OS (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11–0.64, p = 0.003) than patients treated with chemotherapy alone (Figure 1C,D ). Both SCT and chemotherapy subgroups were of similar age at diagnosis (respectively, 59.3 and 61.3 years) and had a comparable proportion of renal failure (respectively, 60.0 and 77.8%, p = 0.448). The impact of any type of SCT on sPCL survival could not be assessed, as only two of the 66 sPCL patients received this type of treatment.

As for patients with MM before transformation into sPCL, the detailed analysis of different treatment protocols was not possible due to the great variability of the regimens used (Table S1 ). From 2005 to 2012, the most frequent frontline treatment was thalidomide with dexamethasone. From 2013 to 2020, the most frequent frontline treatments were bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (PAD), cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) or a combination of both (alternating PAD/VCD). As illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 1 , more recent regimens (2013–2020) did not improve OS when compared to earlier treatments (2005–2012). Clinical characteristics divided by year of diagnosis are presented in Table S2 .

Survival

The median follow‐up for the entire cohort was 92 months (95% CI, 63–121). Median PFS for pPCL and sPCL were 4.8 months (95% CI, 0.4–9.2) and 0.8 month (95% CI, 0.5–1.1) ( p < 0.001; Figure 1A ), respectively. Median OS for pPCL and sPCL were 18.3 months (95% CI, 0.0–39.0) and 1.2 months (95% CI, 0.9–1.5) ( p < 0.001; Figure 1B ), respectively. When considering survival from MM diagnosis to death, the median OS for sPCL was 30.2 months (95% CI, 24.1–36.2). The one‐month, one‐year, and three‐year survival rates were 97.0%, 68.9%, and 36.1% for pPCL and 57.6%, 7.6%, and 3.8% for sPCL. At the time of datalock (July 1st, 2022), 89 patients had died. The cause of death was available for 81 of them and all but one died of complications related to disease progression (mainly infections and bleeding).

As illustrated in Table 2 , only one variable had a significant impact on pPCL and sPCL OS (respectively, thrombocytopenia and elevated lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]) and thus, multivariable analysis could not be performed for either subgroup. Although expression of CD19 and/or CD20 was not statistically significant, a trend toward improved survival was observed in patients expressing these markers in both pPCL and sPCL.

DISCUSSION

Poor prognosis is the hallmark of PCL. In a cohort described 35 years ago by Noel and Kyle, 33 the median OS for pPCL and sPCL were, respectively, 6.8 and 1.3 months. With the advent of new therapeutic options and better supportive care, pPCL OS gradually increased, to reach approximately 20 months in the late 2000s. 32 , 34 Since then, pPCL survival has, however, stagnated and the latest studies (using the same diagnostic criteria) have reported similar OS. 26 , 29 , 31 , 35 Likewise, we did not observe a significant increase in pPCL OS between 2005–2012 and 2013–2020. For sPCL, our data also did not show improvement in survival over time. Moreover, almost half of the sPCL patients died within a month of transformation, similar the first cohort reported in 1974. 2 As illustrated in Table S2 , it is possible that the 2005–2012 and 2013–2020 cohorts had had different clinical characteristics, partly explaining the lack of improvement over time, but these data must be interpreted with great caution as the number of patients in several subgroups is very small. Hopefully, the advent of the latest generation of treatments regimens (such as those including anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, or CAR‐T) will have a greater impact on PCL survival than chemotherapy alone, but this remains to be determined since very few of our patients were exposed to these protocols and data from other research groups are scarce. 36 , 37 , 38

Due its low incidence, the majority of data regarding PCL treatments comes from retrospective studies, limiting the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, one finding that is consistent across studies is improved survival in patients who undergo SCT. 17 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 39 , 40 In our cohort, this type of treatment was also associated with better outcomes for pPCL patients. It is likely that patients who underwent ASCT or tandem ASCT‐alloSCT were fitter than patients treated with chemotherapy alone, but, interestingly, the median age at diagnosis and the proportion of patients with renal failure were similar in both groups. Regarding the optimal SCT approach (i.e., single ASCT vs. tandem ASCT vs. tandem ASCT‐alloSCT), different studies have reported conflicting data 15 , 41 , 42 and thus, practice varies across institutions. Although it would have been interesting to assess the impact on survival of each SCT approach, the small size of our cohort prohibited this type of analysis.

While the majority of research groups have focused on therapeutic options, few studies have been dedicated to the clinical characteristics of PCL, particularly sPCL. Partly because of its very dismal prognosis, sPCL has been presumed to be the consequence of the long‐term selection of an aggressive clone in heavily treated MM. Our data suggests, however, that sPCL arises from an already high‐risk MM. Firstly, the OS from MM diagnosis to death was only 30.2 months, which is substantially shorter than high‐risk (defined as R‐ISS III) MM in modern cohorts (40–60 months 43 , 44 ). A second marker of poor prognosis noted in our MM population was the high rate of relapse within 12 months of SCT. Early relapse, an independent risk factor of short survival, 45 , 46 , 47 usually occurs in 15%–20% of MM patients 46 , 47 , 48 but it was observed in almost 50% of our cohort treated with SCT. Lastly, the proportion of patients with multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, another marker of poor prognosis, 49 , 50 , 51 was notably higher in our cohort (36% of patients had ≥2 cytogenetic abnormalities) than in other studies (10%–14% 49 , 51 ).

Very few variables had a significant impact on OS in our cohort, which is likely attributable, at least in part, to the small size of various subgroups. Nevertheless, an intriguing finding of this study was the trend toward improved survival seen in patients expressing CD19 and/or CD20. In MM, CD20 expression strongly correlates with the t(11;14) translocation 52 , 53 and in a recent report by Cazaubiel et al., 14 this translocation was associated an improved OS in pPCL (39.2 vs. 17.8 months). Moreover, it has been demonstrated, in MM, that both CD20 positivity and t(11;14) are associated with a more lymphoplasmacytoid morphology. 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 Hypothetically, these markers may be associated with a propensity for plasma cells to circulate in the blood without being highly dedifferentiated, therefore explaining why these patients tend to have better outcomes despite high peripheral plasma cells counts. In our cohort, only a few patients were tested for the t(11;14) translocation and thus we could not assess whether CD19 and/or CD20 expression was only a reflection of this translocation or if it was a separate factor for improved survival. Furthermore, these results should be interpreted with caution as flow cytometry was only performed in approximately half of our patients.

There are a few limitations to this study, the first being its retrospective nature and the incomplete data inherent in this type of research. For example, it would have been interesting to assess clonal selection in sPCL between MM diagnosis and sPCL diagnosis. Unfortunately, very few patients had data available at both time points and thus, this type of analysis was not possible. The other main limitation is the use of the 2013 IMWG criteria instead of those of 2021. Because the research protocol was elaborated and submitted before the IMWG criteria update of December 2021, 4 the patients in this study were selected based on previous criteria. As mentioned earlier, PCL criteria have been expanded following studies demonstrating that outcomes are similar for patients with ≥5% and ≥ 20% circulating plasma cells. 5 , 6 Consequently, we believe that our results remain of interest. Finally, despite being one of the largest cohorts of PCL reported, our population remains fairly small. Some analyzes may have been underpowered and should be repeated in a larger cohort.

CONCLUSION

In summary, our data suggest that leukemic transformation in sPCL occurs in already high‐risk MM. We also confirm the very bleak prognosis of both pPCL and sPCL. While SCT seems to be of benefit for eligible patients, we report no improvement in OS in recent years, highlighting the urgent need for basic research focusing on PCL in order to develop better treatment options.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Camille Tessier: Data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); project administration (lead); writing – original draft (lead). Richard LeBlanc: Data curation (equal); supervision (equal). Jean Roy: Data curation (equal); supervision (equal). Sabrina Trudel: Data curation (equal). Julie Côté: Data curation (equal). Marc Lalancette: Data curation (equal). Jean‐Samuel Boudreault: Data curation (equal); supervision (equal). Émilie Lemieux‐Blanchard: Data curation (equal). Rayan Kaedbey: Data curation (equal). Michel Pavic: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (equal); funding acquisition (lead); investigation (lead); methodology (lead); resources (lead); supervision (lead).

FUNDING INFORMATION

This work was supported by the Université de Sherbrooke, via institutional funding.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.

ETHICS STATEMENT

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Comité d'Éthique de la Recherche (Research Ethics Boards) of the CHUM, the CHUQ, the CHUS, the Charles‐Le Moyne Hospital, the Jewish General Hospital, the Maisonneuve‐Rosemont Hospital and the Sacré‐Cœur de Montréal Hospital (multicentric approval number: MP‐31‐2022‐452).

CONSENT

Because of the retrospective nature of the study, patient consent was waived by the Research Ethics Board of the CHUS.

Supporting information

Data S1:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the Université de Sherbrooke, via institutional funding. We would like to thank J. Alston, S. Brière, C. Gordon, Y. A. Houacine, N. Léveillé, L.‐A. Roberge and F. Thibeault for their help with data collection. We would also like to acknowledge the help of the biostatistics consulting service of the CHUS, especially Mr. S. Lemaire‐Paquette, for their support with data analysis.

Tessier C, LeBlanc R, Roy J, et al. Poor outcome despite modern treatments: A retrospective study of 99 patients with primary and secondary plasma cell leukemia. Cancer Med. 2024;13:e70192. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70192

Richard LeBlanc, Jean Roy, Sabrina Trudel, Julie Côté, Marc Lalancette, Jean‐Samuel Boudreault, Émilie Lemieux‐Blanchard, Rayan Kaedbey, Michel Pavic—Groupe des Maladies Plasmocytaires du Québec.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon request.

REFERENCES

1. Gluziński WA, Reichenstein M. Myeloma i leukaemia lymphatica (plasmocellularis). Drukarnia Ludowa. 1907:19:336‐339,

2. Kyle RA, Maldonado JE, Bayrd ED. Plasma cell leukemia. Report on 17 cases. Arch Intern Med. 1974;133(5):813‐818. doi: 10.1001/archinte.133.5.813

3. Fernandez de Larrea C, Kyle RA, Durie BG, et al. Plasma cell leukemia: consensus statement on diagnostic requirements, response criteria and treatment recommendations by the international myeloma working group. Leukemia. 2013;27(4):780‐791. doi: 10.1038/leu.2012.336

4. Fernandez de Larrea C, Kyle R, Rosinol L, et al. Primary plasma cell leukemia: consensus definition by the international myeloma working group according to peripheral blood plasma cell percentage. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11(12):192. doi: 10.1038/s41408-021-00587-0

5. Granell M, Calvo X, Garcia‐Guinon A, et al. Prognostic impact of circulating plasma cells in patients with multiple myeloma: implications for plasma cell leukemia definition. Haematologica. 2017;102(6):1099‐1104. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2016.158303

6. Ravi P, Kumar SK, Roeker L, et al. Revised diagnostic criteria for plasma cell leukemia: results of a Mayo Clinic study with comparison of outcomes to multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(12):116. doi: 10.1038/s41408-018-0140-1

7. Jung SH, Kim K, Yoon SE, et al. Validation of the revised diagnostic criteria for primary plasma cell leukemia by the Korean multiple myeloma working party. Blood Cancer J. 2022;12(11):157. doi: 10.1038/s41408-022-00755-w

8. Nowakowski GS, Witzig TE, Dingli D, et al. Circulating plasma cells detected by flow cytometry as a predictor of survival in 302 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2005;106(7):2276‐2279. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-05-1858

9. Gonsalves WI, Rajkumar SV, Gupta V, et al. Quantification of clonal circulating plasma cells in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: implications for redefining high‐risk myeloma. Leukemia. 2014;28(10):2060‐2065. doi: 10.1038/leu.2014.98

10. Vagnoni D, Travaglini F, Pezzoni V, et al. Circulating plasma cells in newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma as a possible prognostic marker for patients with standard‐risk cytogenetics. Br J Haematol. 2015;170(4):523‐531. doi: 10.1111/bjh.13484

11. Sanoja‐Flores L, Flores‐Montero J, Garces JJ, et al. Next generation flow for minimally‐invasive blood characterization of MGUS and multiple myeloma at diagnosis based on circulating tumor plasma cells (CTPC). Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(12):117. doi: 10.1038/s41408-018-0153-9

12. Hofste Op Bruinink D, Kuiper R, van Duin M, et al. Identification of high‐risk multiple myeloma with a plasma cell leukemia‐like transcriptomic profile. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(27):3132‐3150. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01217

13. Rojas EA, Corchete LA, Mateos MV, Garcia‐Sanz R, Misiewicz‐Krzeminska I, Gutierrez NC. Transcriptome analysis reveals significant differences between primary plasma cell leukemia and multiple myeloma even when sharing a similar genetic background. Blood Cancer J. 2019;9(12):90. doi: 10.1038/s41408-019-0253-1

14. Cazaubiel T, Leleu X, Perrot A, et al. Primary plasma cell leukemias displaying t(11;14) have specific genomic, transcriptional, and clinical features. Blood. 2022;139(17):2666‐2672. doi: 10.1182/blood.2021014968

15. Royer B, Minvielle S, Diouf M, et al. Bortezomib, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone induction followed by stem cell transplantation for primary plasma cell leukemia: a prospective phase II study of the Intergroupe francophone du Myelome. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(18):2125‐2132. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1929

16. van de Donk N, Minnema MC, van der Holt B, et al. Treatment of primary plasma cell leukaemia with carfilzomib and lenalidomide‐based therapy (EMN12/HOVON‐129): final analysis of a non‐randomised, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(10):1119‐1133. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00405-9

17. Musto P, Simeon V, Martorelli MC, et al. Lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone for newly diagnosed primary plasma cell leukemia. Leukemia. 2014;28(1):222‐225. doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.241

18. Usmani SZ, Hoering A, Ailawadhi S, et al. Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without elotuzumab in patients with untreated, high‐risk multiple myeloma (SWOG‐1211): primary analysis of a randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2021;8(1):e45‐e54. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30354-9

19. Kaiser MF, Hall A, Walker K, et al. Daratumumab, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone as induction and extended consolidation improves outcome in ultra‐high‐risk multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(23):3945‐3955. doi: 10.1200/jco.22.02567

20. Lu J, Liu Y, Hou J, Li J. Bortezomib‐Decp alternating with Daratumumab‐Vpd plus stem cell transplantation, followed by maintenance with VP in ultra‐high risk (UHiR) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL): a multicenter, prospective phase 2 pilot trial (Dragon Catcher Trial). Blood. 2022;140(Supplement 1):10189‐10190. doi: 10.1182/blood-2022-164563%JBlood

21. Katodritou E, Kastritis E, Dalampira D, et al. Improved survival of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia with VRd or daratumumab‐based quadruplets: a multicenter study by the Greek myeloma study group. Am J Hematol. 2023;98(5):730‐738. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26891

22. Katodritou E, Terpos E, Kelaidi C, et al. Treatment with bortezomib‐based regimens improves overall response and predicts for survival in patients with primary or secondary plasma cell leukemia: analysis of the Greek myeloma study group. Am J Hematol. 2014;89(2):145‐150. doi: 10.1002/ajh.23600

23. Tiedemann RE, Gonzalez‐Paz N, Kyle RA, et al. Genetic aberrations and survival in plasma cell leukemia. Leukemia. 2008;22(5):1044‐1052. doi: 10.1038/leu.2008.4

24. Nandakumar B, Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia in the era of novel agent therapy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96(3):677‐687. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.06.060

25. Drake MB, Iacobelli S, van Biezen A, et al. Primary plasma cell leukemia and autologous stem cell transplantation. Haematologica. 2010;95(5):804‐809. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2009.013334

26. Jurczyszyn A, Radocha J, Davila J, et al. Prognostic indicators in primary plasma cell leukaemia: a multicentre retrospective study of 117 patients. Br J Haematol. 2018;180(6):831‐839. doi: 10.1111/bjh.15092

27. Gundesen MT, Lund T, Moeller HEH, Abildgaard N. Plasma cell leukemia: definition, presentation, and treatment. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019;21(1):8. doi: 10.1007/s11912-019-0754-x

28. Mina R, Joseph NS, Kaufman JL, et al. Survival outcomes of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) treated with novel agents. Cancer. 2019;125(3):416‐423. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31718

29. Yu T, Xu Y, An G, et al. Primary plasma cell leukemia: real‐world retrospective study of 46 patients from a single‐center study in China. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(10):e652‐e659. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.05.014

30. Jurczyszyn A, Castillo JJ, Avivi I, et al. Secondary plasma cell leukemia: a multicenter retrospective study of 101 patients. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019;60(1):118‐123. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2018.1473574

31. Wang H, Zhou H, Zhang Z, Geng C, Chen W. Bortezomib‐based regimens improve the outcome of patients with primary or secondary plasma cell leukemia: a retrospective cohort study. Turk J Haematol. 2020;37(2):91‐97. doi: 10.4274/tjh.galenos.2019.2019.0254

32. Peijing Q, Yan X, Yafei W, et al. A retrospective analysis of thirty‐one cases of plasma cell leukemia from a single center in China. Acta Haematol. 2009;121(1):47‐51. doi: 10.1159/000210555

33. Noel P, Kyle RA. Plasma cell leukemia: an evaluation of response to therapy. Am J Med. 1987;83(6):1062‐1068. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(87)90942-9

34. Cha CH, Park CJ, Huh JR, Chi HS, Suh CW, Kang YK. Significantly better prognosis for patients with primary plasma cell leukemia than for patients with secondary plasma cell leukemia. Acta Haematol. 2007;118(3):178‐182. doi: 10.1159/000109470

35. Pena C, Riva E, Schutz N, et al. Primary plasma cell leukemia in Latin America: demographic, clinical, and prognostic characteristics. A study of GELAMM group. Leuk Lymphoma. 2023;64(4):816‐821. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2023.2171266

36. Li C, Cao W, Que Y, et al. A phase I study of anti‐BCMA CAR T cell therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. Clin Transl Med. 2021;11(3):e346. doi: 10.1002/ctm2.346

37. Deng J, Lin Y, Zhao D, et al. Case report: plasma cell leukemia secondary to multiple myeloma successfully treated with anti‐BCMA CAR‐T cell therapy. Front Oncol. 2022;12:901266. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.901266

38. Tuazon SA, Holmberg LA, Nadeem O, Richardson PG. A clinical perspective on plasma cell leukemia; current status and future directions. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11(2):23. doi: 10.1038/s41408-021-00414-6

39. Yan W, Fan H, Xu J, et al. The clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) according to the new IMWG definition criteria. Leuk Lymphoma. 2022;63(12):2955‐2964. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2022.2098290

40. Chineke IG, Wertheim BC, Roe D, et al. Plasma cell leukemia: a multicenter retrospective study of 150 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(16_suppl):8014. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.8014

41. Lawless S, Iacobelli S, Knelange NS, et al. Comparison of autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation strategies in patients with primary plasma cell leukemia, with dynamic prediction modeling. Haematologica. 2023;108(4):1105‐1114. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2021.280568

42. Mahindra A, Kalaycio ME, Vela‐Ojeda J, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation for primary plasma cell leukemia: results from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Leukemia. 2012;26(5):1091‐1097. doi: 10.1038/leu.2011.312

43. Palumbo A, Avet‐Loiseau H, Oliva S, et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(26):2863‐20869. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.2267

44. Schavgoulidze A, Lauwers‐Cances V, Perrot A, et al. Heterogeneity in long‐term outcomes for patients with revised international staging system stage II, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2023;108(5):1374‐1384. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2021.280566

45. Jimenez‐Zepeda VH, Reece DE, Trudel S, Chen C, Tiedemann R, Kukreti V. Early relapse after single auto‐SCT for multiple myeloma is a major predictor of survival in the era of novel agents. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(2):204‐208. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2014.237

46. Corre J, Montes L, Martin E, et al. Early relapse after autologous transplant for myeloma is associated with poor survival regardless of cytogenetic risk. Haematologica. 2020;105(9):e480‐e483. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2019.236588

47. Kastritis E, Roussou M, Eleutherakis‐Papaiakovou E, et al. Early relapse after autologous transplant is associated with very poor survival and identifies an ultra‐high‐risk group of patients with myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020;20(7):445‐452. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.10.014

48. Yan W, Xu J, Fan H, et al. Early relapse within 18 months is a powerful dynamic predictor for prognosis and could revise static risk distribution in multiple myeloma. Cancer. 2024;130(3):421‐432. doi: 10.1002/cncr.35056

49. Obiekwe D, Joseph N, Hofmeister CC, et al. The impact of complex karyotype identified by conventional cytogenetics on survival outcomes of 1,000 patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (NDMM). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(16_suppl):8063. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.8063

50. Nemec P, Zemanova Z, Kuglik P, et al. Complex karyotype and translocation t(4;14) define patients with high‐risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of CMG2002 trial. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53(5):920‐927. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2011.634042

51. Uryu H, Mishima Y, Ishihara Y, et al. Complex karyotype determined using conventional cytogenetic analysis is a poor prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma. J Clin Exp Hematop. 2024;64(1):10‐20. doi: 10.3960/jslrt.23047

52. Robillard N, Avet‐Loiseau H, Garand R, et al. CD20 is associated with a small mature plasma cell morphology and t(11;14) in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2003;102(3):1070‐1071. doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-11-3333

53. Mateo G, Castellanos M, Rasillo A, et al. Genetic abnormalities and patterns of antigenic expression in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(10):3661‐3667. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1489

54. Fonseca R, Blood EA, Oken MM, et al. Myeloma and the t (11;14) (q13;q32); evidence for a biologically defined unique subset of patients. Blood. 2002;99(10):3735‐3741. doi: 10.1182/blood.v99.10.3735

55. Kapoor P, Greipp PT, Morice WG, Rajkumar SV, Witzig TE, Greipp PR. Anti‐CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2008;141(2):135‐148. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2008.07024.x

56. Garand R, Avet‐Loiseau H, Accard F, Moreau P, Harousseau JL, Bataille R. T(11;14) and t(4;14) translocations correlated with mature lymphoplasmacytoid and immature morphology, respectively, in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2003;17(10):2032‐2035. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2403091

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data S1:

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon request.