Introduction
Plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is the rarest yet most aggressive plasma cell disorder. PCL was originally defined by an absolute plasma cell (PC) count greater than 2 × 10 9 /L in the peripheral blood (PB) and more than 20% circulating PCs 1 . At present, only one of the original two requirements is used to define PCL according to the criteria by the World Health Organization and the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) 2 , 3 . The definition of PCL is currently an area of controversy as recent studies suggest that the presence of ≥5% circulating abnormal PCs but not meeting the 20% cutoff have a similar adverse prognostic impact and poor survival as patients with >20% abnormal PCs 4 , 5 . Therefore, patients with PCs comprising ≥5% of the PB white cell differential count may be considered as having PCL and can be treated as such. Another limitation of the current diagnostic definition of PCL is that it does not take into consideration plasma cell clonality, which can be characterized using multiparametric flow cytometry 6 . Establishing the presence of a malignant clonal population is important as reactive plasmacytosis can occur due to a variety of infections, neoplastic or inflammatory conditions 7 – 10 .
PCL is referred to as primary when the leukemic phase presents at diagnosis, or secondary when leukemic progression occurs in the context of preexisting multiple myeloma (MM). Historically, 60–70% of cases have been reported to be primary PCL (pPCL), whereas ~40% are secondary 11 . In recent years, there has been an increase in the incidence of secondary PCL 12 , likely related to more effective therapies contributing to both improved survival and clonal selection over time. In this review, we will focus on pPCL, and also comment on secondary PCL, when applicable.
Clinical and laboratory manifestations of PCL
In comparison to MM, pPCL has distinct biological and clinical features. Because pPCL is rare, data has been primarily obtained from retrospective studies with small numbers of patients. The median age at diagnosis of pPCL is 61 years, approximately 10 years younger than the average age of diagnosis of a typical MM patient 13 . pPCL is characterized by significant anemia, thrombocytopenia, renal insufficiency, hypercalcemia, and increased tumor burden (reflected by elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and β2-microglobulin, as well as marked bone marrow (BM) plasma cell infiltration 2 , 14 . Light chain and nonsecretory subtypes are more commonly observed in pPCL 12 . Extramedullary involvement is similarly more common in pPCL, and may be related to tumor cells having reduced expression of adhesion molecules (CD56, LFA-1, LFA-3, VLA-5), which impair retention of PCs within the BM 15 – 18 . Conversely, lytic bone lesions are less common in pPCL than in MM 12 .
The immunophenotype of MM and pPCL express both CD38 and CD138; however, pPCL cells have higher expression of CD20, CD27, CD28, and CD45 and lower expression of CD9, CD56, CD117, and HLA-DR compared to MM 19 – 21 . The karyotype of pPCL frequently demonstrates hypodiploidy, associated with poor prognosis 22 , 23 . Chromosome 1 aberrations (deletion 1p and 1q amplification), now considered adverse cytogenetic abnormalities by the IMWG in MM 24 , are also more frequent in pPCL 25 , 26 . Importantly, deletion 17p, a notoriously high-risk marker, is observed in up to 50% of pPCL 12 . The most common abnormality in pPCL is t(11;14) with a frequency ranging from 25% to 70%, which in comparison, is described in only 15–20% of patients with MM 2 , 10 , 12 , 27 .
Prognosis
As in MM, the presence of adverse cytogenetic abnormalities is a major determinant of worse prognosis. Age ≥60 years, platelet count ≤100 × 10 9/ L, and PB PC count ≥20 × 10 9 /L have also been reported as predictors of inferior survival 28 . Historically, patients with pPCL have a median overall survival (OS) ranging from 4 to 11 months 12 , 29 . Widespread use of novel agents and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have modestly improved survival. This is illustrated by SEER data reporting median OS of 5, 6, 4, and 12 months in 445 patients diagnosed with pPCL during 1973–1995, 1996–2000, 2001–2005, and 2006–2009, respectively 30 . In patients undergoing ASCT, survival may be 2–3 years, which is still inferior and only a fraction of what can now be seen in other MM populations 31 – 33 .
Diagnostic evaluation
The initial diagnostic workup of pPCL is similar to those performed in MM. This includes a CBC/differential, creatinine, calcium, LDH, β2-microglobulin, albumin, serum protein electrophoresis/immunofixation, serum-free light chains, 24 h urine collection for total protein, electrophoresis/immunofixation, and BM aspiration and biopsy 34 . In addition, a PET-CT should be obtained due to the high incidence of extraosseous plasmacytomas. BM specimens should be sent for morphology, flow cytometry, and cytogenetics by FISH 35 . Laboratory tests to assess tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) should also be obtained 35 . A lumbar puncture for cerebrospinal fluid cytology and flow cytometry can be performed, if there is any suspicion for central nervous system or leptomeningeal involvement based on clinical presentation (e.g., headache, cranial nerve palsies, marked PB leukocytosis, and large plasmacytomas appearing to encroach the brain or spinal cord on radiographs).
Treatment
Due to the aggressive nature of pPCL, immediate disease control is warranted to prevent disease-related complications and early mortality. Patients with detectable circulating PCs by conventional blood count, despite not meeting the arbitrary cutoff of 20%, should be considered for treatment similar to pPCL. Because there have been no randomized prospective trials that specifically evaluate the treatment of pPCL, therapeutic recommendations are largely based on small prospective and retrospective studies, and extrapolated data from MM trials. Importantly, enrollment to clinical trials is strongly encouraged, especially those incorporating monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and also other targeted agents (e.g., venetoclax). Figure 1 summarizes a proposed treatment algorithm for pPCL. Fig. 1 Proposed treatment algorithim for plasma cell leukemia.
Induction
Regimens that comprise the proteasome inhibitor (PI), bortezomib induce high overall response rates (ORR) of up to 79% in pPCL as demonstrated in retrospective studies 28 , 36 , 37 . A phase II study by the IFM demonstrated an ORR of 69% ( n = 27) after induction with alternating cycles of bortezomib, dexamethasone + cyclophosphamide, or doxorubicin among newly diagnosed patients with pPCL 33 . As in MM, bortezomib may partially abrogate the adverse prognosis of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities 38 , 39 , commonly seen in pPCL.
Among the immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), lenalidomide is the agent with most data demonstrating efficacy in pPCL. A phase II multicenter study showed an ORR of 60% among patients treated with lenalidomide + dexamethasone with/without high-dose melphalan supported by ASCT 40 . Importantly, next-generation PIs (carfilzomib, ixazomib), IMiDs (pomalidomide), and CD38-directed mAb (daratumumab) have exhibited high efficacy in MM, even among those with adverse cytogenetics. It may be reasonable to speculate that these drugs would have efficacy in pPCL. However, the data on the efficacy of these drugs is exceedingly limited as patients with pPCL are often excluded from prospective trials of MM. Recently, the European Myeloma Network presented an abstract reporting an interim analysis of a phase II trial (EMN12/HOVON 129) using carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) as induction, consolidation, and maintenance in patients with pPCL 35 . In patients ≤65 years, 4 cycles of KRd is followed by tandem ASCT (or tandem auto-allo SCT if there is a suitable donor), KRd consolidation, followed by KR maintenance until progression. Patients >65 years old received 8 cycles of KRd followed by KR. Among 14 patients who received 4 cycles of KRd induction, very good partial response or greater response was observed in 80% with 33% achieving at least a complete response. The study suggests that the induction phase could be optimized by incorporating newer agents used in MM to further improve the quality of responses.
For the above reasons, combination therapies incorporating a PI and IMiD are considered frontline in the treatment of pPCL, building on the success of the lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone platform (RVd) 41 , 42 . In patients who are transplant-eligible, induction therapy should be given until best response is achieved. In those who are transplant-ineligible, between 8 and 12 cycles of induction should be administered prior to maintenance therapy.
Although limited evidence exists, intensive chemotherapy regimens, such as VTd/RVd-PACE (bortezomib, thalidomide or lenalidomide, dexamethasone, cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, etoposide) or hyperCVAD-RV (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, lenalidomide, bortezomib) can be used for induction if rapid cytoreduction is required 2 , 43 – 45 . Less-intensive regimens such as RVd + liposomal doxorubicin or RVd + cyclophosphamide 46 , 47 are also reasonable options to be considered, particularly in frail patients 48 .
Novel MM therapies that are under investigation in pPCL include combination of pomalidomide with ixazomib ( NCT02547662 ), and daratumumab combined with bortezomib, dexamethasone, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, and lenalidomide ( NCT03591744 ). The remarkable efficacy of the RVd + daratumumab quadruplet as induction therapy achieving deep responses in MM in the GRIFFIN trial strongly advocates for this approach in pPCL, as does the preliminary data with KRd + daratumumab 49 , 50 . Finally, encouraging data using venetoclax targeting t(11;14) MM provides a clear rationale for incorporating this approach in pPCL, with clinical trials in development for combinations in the newly diagnosed setting 51 , 52 .
Hematopoietic cell transplantation
Phase II trials have demonstrated that PI and IMiDs combined with ASCT may be effective in a proportion of patients with pPCL 33 , 40 . The feasibility and potential efficacy of ASCT in pPCL are also demonstrated in registry studies. The European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation reported outcomes of 272 patients with pPCL who underwent ASCT between 1980 and 2006. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and median OS were 14.3 months and 15.7 months, respectively. Data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) demonstrated a 3 year PFS and 3 year OS of 34% and 64%, respectively, among 97 patients with pPCL who underwent ASCT 32 . Furthermore, there was a trend toward superior OS in patients who underwent a tandem compared to a single ASCT 32 . Recent data from the CIBMTR demonstrated persistently poor post-ASCT outcomes in 348 patients with pPCL despite the widespread use of novel agents. The 3-year OS was 35% and 38% in patients after ASCT and allo-SCT, respectively 53 . Despite the potential benefit of ASCT, it is clear that intensification of therapy with novel combination regimens in conjunction with ASCT, if appropriate, is still needed to improve pPCL outcomes, as well as innovative approaches to maintenance therapy. One way to intensify treatment is with tandem ASCT, which although largely unproven in pPCL may improve outcomes as demonstrated by better PFS in patients with high-risk MM in the EMN02/HO95 54 and updated results of the STaMINA trial 55 .
Despite the possibility of cure, there have been variable reports on the efficacy of allo-SCT in pPCL. The CIBMTR reported the outcomes of 50 patients with pPCL who underwent an allo-SCT, the majority of whom (68%) received a myeloablative conditioning regimen 32 . The cumulative incidence of relapse at 3 years was significantly lower with allo-SCT (38% vs. 61%) compared with ASCT but the 3-year OS was inferior with allo-SCT (39% vs. 64%) 32 . The lack of OS benefit with allo-SCT could partly be due to a higher treatment-related mortality (TRM) (41% allo-SCT vs. 5% in the ASCT) 32 . Survival of patients treated with allo-SCT plateaued at 20% in 5 years suggesting that a proportion of patients with pPCL can achieve long-term remissions with this approach. In the IFM trial, 16 responding patients ≤65 years with an HLA-matched donor received a tandem ASCT and reduced-intensity conditioning allo-SCT. Six patients who did not meet criteria for allo-SCT proceeded to a second ASCT followed by consolidation/maintenance with RVd for 1 year. After a median follow-up of 28.7 months, the median PFS and OS were 15.1 and 36.3 months, respectively 33 .
Because allo-SCT is associated with dismal OS when applied after relapse, it should be offered early, if considered at all 56 . As demonstrated in patients with MM, allo-SCT is also fraught by high rates of TRM, particularly with myeloablative conditioning regimens 57 , 58 . Less-intensive conditioning regimens for allo-SCT that rely on graft versus myeloma (GvM) effects for disease eradication, significantly reduce TRM but at the expense of higher relapse rates 59 . Myeloablative ASCT followed by reduced-intensity allo-SCT (tandem auto/allo-SCT) allows for optimal cytoreduction followed by the immunologic GvM, and in the context of protocol-directed therapy, warrants consideration as part of prospective studies.
Maintenance
pPCL is characterized by short remissions and early relapse; therefore, early institution of maintenance therapy and/or consolidation post-ASCT (~day 60–80) is recommended to prevent disease progression. Single-agent maintenance appears insufficient to maintain remissions in pPCL as demonstrated by 80% relapse rate occurring at 2–12 months of lenalidomide maintenance 40 . Growing evidence indicates that consolidation with a doublet or triplet may improve response rates and PFS in MM 60 , which may support similar strategies in pPCL such as lenalidomide combined with bortezomib, with or without a mAb.
Maintenance therapy after allo-SCT is controversial but reasonable to administer while awaiting full GvM effect. Lenalidomide may potentiate acute graft-versus host-disease (GvHD) when instituted early after allo-SCT, but may be effective at a lower dose 61 , 62 . On the other hand, bortezomib is safe and feasible when administered post-allo-SCT 63 , and may decrease the risk of GvHD, partly by impairing the activation of T-cells and antigen-presenting cells 64 , 65 .
Supportive care
During treatment initiation, patients with pPCL are at risk for TLS due to a high tumor burden and rapid cell turnover. TLS precautions should be instituted with adequate hydration and prophylaxis with allopurinol or rasburicase (if high-risk). For patients on PIs, varicella zoster prophylaxis should be administered concurrently. Patients should receive venous thromboembolism prophylaxis while on IMiDs. Although osteolytic lesions are less frequent in pPCL relative to MM, all patients with pPCL should be started on anti-resorptive bone targeting agents to reduce the risk of skeletal-related events. Hydration to preserve renal function is also critical, as is more broadly, caution regarding increased risk of infections with particular attention to growth factor use, IVIG administration, and antibiotics as clinically indicated.
Emerging therapies for PCL
As mentioned, t(11;14) is frequently observed in pPCL and is a marker of BCL-2 overexpression; thus, venetoclax (BCL-2 inhibitor) may be useful. In phase I trials of patients with relapsed/refractory MM, venetoclax has demonstrated high responses as a single agent (ORR 40%) 66 and in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (ORR 78%) 67 in patients harboring t(11;14). In patients with relapsed pPCL, case reports have demonstrated efficacy of venetoclax as a single agent 68 or in combination with daratumumab, dexamethasone with 69 or without bortezomib 70 .
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy 71 and other immunotherapies (e.g., bispecific T-cell engagers 72 , antibody–drug conjugates 73 ) that target B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) have gained momentum in the recent years due to striking initial responses even among high-risk and heavily pretreated individuals with MM. However, the ability to generate durable functional anti-myeloma T-cell responses is still limited. In a phase I study of bb2121 (BCMA-targeted CAR T-cell), the ORR was 85% among 33 treated patients, including 15 patients with complete responses with median PFS of 11.8 months 71 . The role of CAR T-cells and other immunotherapeutic strategies in the treatment of pPCL remains to be defined.
Other emerging therapies for pPCL include a phase II trial of NK cells in combination with elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and high-dose melphalan before ASCT ( NCT01729091 ) and a phase II trial of panobinostat, gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan before ASCT ( NCT02506959 ). In this context, the use of panobinostat in combination with other novel agents including mAbs has a strong rationale; as does the incorporation of selinexor into multiagent regimens, especially given the promising activity of this next-generation novel drug in targeting del(17p) 74 , 75 .
Assessing treatment response
In contrast to MM, there are no specific treatment response criteria for PCL. The response criteria used in MM appears inadequate to assess response in PCL due to the leukemic nature of the disease, increased incidence of light chain and nonsecretory forms, and extramedullary disease. The IMWG proposed the inclusion of PB PC criterion and assessment of extramedullary disease (by PET-CT) to the standard biomarker and BM criteria (Table 1 ) 2 . In case of undetectable BM and PB PCs by morphology, flow cytometry should be used to measure residual disease. Table 1 Plasma cell leukemia response criteria by the International Myeloma Working Group. Response Serum and urine biomarkers a BM plasma cells Peripheral blood plasma cells Extramedullary disease Stringent complete response (CR) Negative serum & urine immunofixation; Normal serum-free light chain ratio <5% by morphology & no malignant plasma cells by flow cytometry Negative by morphology & flow cytometry Absent Complete response Negative serum & urine immunofixation b <5% by morphology Negative by morphology Absent Very good partial response ≥90% reduction of serum M-protein & <100 mg/24 h urinary M-protein c <5% by morphology Negative by morphology Absent Partial response ≥50% reduction of serum M-protein & reduction in 24 h urinary M-protein by ≥90% & <200 mg/24 h d 5–25% by morphology 1–5% plasma cells by morphology ≥50% size reduction from baseline Stable disease Not meeting the criteria of either partial response or progressive disease Progressive disease >25% increase in the level of the serum M-protein with an absolute increase ≥5 g/L;>25% increase in the 24 h urinary light chain excretion with an absolute increase ≥200 mg/24 h >25% increase or absolute increase ≥10% >5% absolute increase in plasma cells by morphology Increase in size or number Relapse from CR Reappearance of original M-protein in serum and/or urine immunofixation >10% increase Detectable at any level Any extramedullary disease a It should be maintained for a minimum of 6 weeks. In case of discrepancy or undetectable serological parameter, the patient must be classified according to bone marrow criteria. b If the serum and urine M-protein are unmeasurable, a normal serum kappa/lambda ratio is also required. c If the serum and urine M-protein are unmeasurable, a ≥90% decrease in the difference between involved and uninvolved light chains is required. d If the serum and urine M-protein are unmeasurable, a ≥50% decrease in the difference between involved and uninvolved light chains is required.
Table 1
Plasma cell leukemia response criteria by the International Myeloma Working Group.
a It should be maintained for a minimum of 6 weeks. In case of discrepancy or undetectable serological parameter, the patient must be classified according to bone marrow criteria. b If the serum and urine M-protein are unmeasurable, a normal serum kappa/lambda ratio is also required. c If the serum and urine M-protein are unmeasurable, a ≥90% decrease in the difference between involved and uninvolved light chains is required. d If the serum and urine M-protein are unmeasurable, a ≥50% decrease in the difference between involved and uninvolved light chains is required.
| Response | Serum and urine biomarkers a | BM plasma cells | Peripheral blood plasma cells | Extramedullary disease |
| Stringent complete response (CR) | Negative serum & urine immunofixation; Normal serum-free light chain ratio | <5% by morphology & no malignant plasma cells by flow cytometry | Negative by morphology & flow cytometry | Absent |
| Complete response | Negative serum & urine immunofixation b | <5% by morphology | Negative by morphology | Absent |
| Very good partial response | ≥90% reduction of serum M-protein & <100 mg/24 h urinary M-protein c | <5% by morphology | Negative by morphology | Absent |
| Partial response | ≥50% reduction of serum M-protein & reduction in 24 h urinary M-protein by ≥90% & <200 mg/24 h d | 5–25% by morphology | 1–5% plasma cells by morphology | ≥50% size reduction from baseline |
| Stable disease | Not meeting the criteria of either partial response or progressive disease | |||
| Progressive disease | >25% increase in the level of the serum M-protein with an absolute increase ≥5 g/L;>25% increase in the 24 h urinary light chain excretion with an absolute increase ≥200 mg/24 h | >25% increase or absolute increase ≥10% | >5% absolute increase in plasma cells by morphology | Increase in size or number |
| Relapse from CR | Reappearance of original M-protein in serum and/or urine immunofixation | >10% increase | Detectable at any level | Any extramedullary disease |
Treatment of relapsed or refractory PCL, including secondary PCL
Limited data exists to guide treatment for relapsed/refractory pPCL. Clinical trial participation should be encouraged if an appropriate study is available; although pPCL is typically an exclusive criteria to most studies in the advanced disease setting. A critical option is to utilize a combination of active drugs in MM, particularly ones that the patient has not previously received nor is refractory to. Patients who experience a deep and prolonged response to a prior therapy, re-treatment with the same regimen can be considered, particularly if the relapse occurred off therapy 76 .
For patients in whom RVd-based therapy has been utilized initially, carfilzomib-based treatment can be deployed at relapse; similarly, if MM disease progression manifesting as secondary PCL occurs, the use of carfilzomib-based therapy should also be used in the same context. This sequencing of therapeutic strategies has been recently validated by the events of the ENDURANCE trial comparing RVd to KRd in the standard newly diagnosed MM patient where equivalent outcomes and less cardiovascular, renal, and pulmonary toxicity was seen with RVd 77 .
Salvage strategies using combinations of novel agents incorporating pomalidomide, panobinostat, elotuzumab, daratumumab, isatuximab, and if appropriate ixazomib, selinexor, and belantamab mafodotin can all be considered 78 – 85 . Combination regimens incorporating chemotherapy are also a potentially mainstay in this frequently difficult-to-treat population, and the use of high-dose steroids as well as nonmyelotoxic agents such as thalidomide as part of these approaches can have merit 86 , 87 .
It is hoped that additional approaches can be engendered from the next wave of novel agents, and especially those targeting “stemness” and extramedullary disease, such as melflufen, with current studies informing real-world practice 88 – 90 .
Conclusion
The use of multidrug combinations (including a PI, an IMiD, and now a mAb) for induction appears to be a rational approach to consider in pPCL. While rates of post-ASCT relapse remain high, ASCT should be incorporated in eligible patients when appropriate, either as tandem ASCT or tandem ASCT/allo-SCT, comparable to the paradigm used more broadly in relapsed/refractory MM, given the need for sustained response. Similarly, because of the high TRM, myeloablative allo-SCT should only be performed in the context of a trial. Consolidation and maintenance until disease progression should be administered to both transplant-eligible and ineligible patients. Although enrollment to clinical trials is strongly advised, this is not always feasible partly due to the relative paucity of specific studies on pPCL, highlighting the critical need for prospective trials for this especially challenging high-risk subgroup. The role of immunotherapies (CAR T-cells, mAbs, bispecific T-cell engagers, antibody–drug conjugates) and small molecule inhibitors, such as venetoclax, in the treatment of pPCL is much needed and eagerly awaited.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the editorial assistance of Ashley Ford and Jack Sparacino, supported in part by the R.J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation. Funding source: S.A.T. is supported by grants from the Conquer Cancer Foundation and the NIH/NCI P30 CA015704.
Conflict of interest
S.A.T. does not have any conflict of interest. L.A.H reports research funding from Seattle Genetics, Merck, Millennium Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Celgene/BMS, Sanofi-Aventis and Janssen, and royalties from UpToDate. P.G.R. is an advisory committee member for Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Celgene/BMS, Takeda, Janssen Sanofi, SecuraBio and GSK, and receives research grant support from Oncopeptides, Celgene/BMS, and Takeda. O.N. is an advisory committee member for Takeda, Celgene/BMS, Sanofi, GSK, and has received consulting fees from Janssen.
References
1. Kyle RA Maldonado JE Bayrd ED Plasma cell leukemia. Report on 17 cases. Arch. Intern. Med. 1974 133 813 818 10.1001/archinte.133.5.813 4821776
2. Fernandez de Larrea C Plasma cell leukemia: consensus statement on diagnostic requirements, response criteria and treatment recommendations by the International Myeloma Working Group Leukemia. 2013 27 780 791 10.1038/leu.2012.336 23288300 PMC4112539
3. Swerdlow S. H. C. E., et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Revised 4th edn. (WHO, 2017).
4. Granell M Prognostic impact of circulating plasma cells in patients with multiple myeloma: implications for plasma cell leukemia definition Haematologica. 2017 102 1099 1104 10.3324/haematol.2016.158303 28255016 PMC5451342
5. Ravi P Revised diagnostic criteria for plasma cell leukemia: results of a Mayo Clinic study with comparison of outcomes to multiple myeloma Blood Cancer J. 2018 8 116 10.1038/s41408-018-0140-1 30442928 PMC6238010
6. Evans LA Utilizing multiparametric flow cytometry in the diagnosis of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia. Am. J. Hematol. 2020 95 637 642 10.1002/ajh.25773 32129510 PMC7217733
7. Zhang J Reactive plasmacytosis mimicking multiple myeloma associated with SFTS virus infection: a report of two cases and literature review BMC Infect. Dis. 2018 18 528 10.1186/s12879-018-3431-z 30348099 PMC6198377
8. Shtalrid M Shvidel L Vorst E Polyclonal reactive peripheral blood plasmacytosis mimicking plasma cell leukemia in a patient with Staphylococcal sepsis Leuk. Lymphoma. 2003 44 379 380 10.1080/1042819021000029713 12688365
9. Okabe M Hirono K Tamura K Ichida F Kanegane H Reactive peripheral blood plasmacytosis in Kawasaki disease Pediatr. Int. 2018 60 884 885 10.1111/ped.13600 30125435
10. Touzeau C Reactive plasmacytoses can mimick plasma cell leukemia: therapeutical implications Leuk. Lymphoma. 2007 48 207 208 10.1080/10428190601016159 17325872
11. Pagano L Primary plasma cell leukemia: a retrospective multicenter study of 73 patients Ann. Oncol. 2011 22 1628 1635 10.1093/annonc/mdq646 21252060
12. Tiedemann RE Genetic aberrations and survival in plasma cell leukemia Leukemia. 2008 22 1044 1052 10.1038/leu.2008.4 18216867 PMC3893817
13. Gundesen MT Lund T Moeller HEH Abildgaard N Plasma cell leukemia: definition, presentation, and treatment Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2019 21 8 10.1007/s11912-019-0754-x 30689121 PMC6349791
14. Drake MB Primary plasma cell leukemia and autologous stem cell transplantation Haematologica. 2010 95 804 809 10.3324/haematol.2009.013334 20442444 PMC2864387
15. Kraj M Kopec-Szlezak J Poglod R Kruk B Flow cytometric immunophenotypic characteristics of 36 cases of plasma cell leukemia Leuk. Res. 2011 35 169 176 10.1016/j.leukres.2010.04.021 20553988
16. Schmidmaier R Inhibition of lymphocyte function associated antigen 1 by LFA878 induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells and is associated with downregulation of the focal adhesion kinase/phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase/Akt pathway Int. J. Oncol. 2007 31 969 976 17786331
17. Ohtake K Integrin VLA-5 negative primary plasma cell leukemia Intern. Med. 1993 32 565 568 10.2169/internalmedicine.32.565 8286836
18. Barker HF Hamilton MS Ball J Drew M Franklin IM Expression of adhesion molecules LFA-3 and N-CAM on normal and malignant human plasma cells Br. J. Haematol. 1992 81 331 335 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1992.tb08236.x 1382543
19. Garcia-Sanz R Primary plasma cell leukemia: clinical, immunophenotypic, DNA ploidy, and cytogenetic characteristics Blood 1999 93 1032 1037 10.1182/blood.V93.3.1032 9920853
20. Guikema JE Vellenga E Abdulahad WH Hovenga S Bos NA CD27-triggering on primary plasma cell leukaemia cells has anti-apoptotic effects involving mitogen activated protein kinases Br. J. Haematol. 2004 124 299 308 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04783.x 14717776
21. Katodritou E 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 89 145 150 10.1002/ajh.23600 24123068
22. Avet-Loiseau H Cytogenetic, interphase, and multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses in primary plasma cell leukemia: a study of 40 patients at diagnosis, on behalf of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome and the Groupe Français de Cytogénétique Hématologique Blood 2001 97 822 825 10.1182/blood.V97.3.822 11157506
23. Chiecchio L Frequent upregulation of MYC in plasma cell leukemia Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2009 48 624 636 10.1002/gcc.20670 19396865
24. Sonneveld P Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group Blood 2016 127 2955 2962 10.1182/blood-2016-01-631200 27002115 PMC4920674
25. Chang H Genetic aberrations including chromosome 1 abnormalities and clinical features of plasma cell leukemia Leuk. Res. 2009 33 259 262 10.1016/j.leukres.2008.06.027 18676019
26. Chang H Yeung J Xu W Ning Y Patterson B Significant increase of CKS1B amplification from monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukaemia as demonstrated by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridisation Br. J. Haematol. 2006 134 613 615 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2006.06237.x 16889615
27. Fonseca R Myeloma and the t(11;14)(q13;q32); evidence for a biologically defined unique subset of patients Blood 2002 99 3735 3741 10.1182/blood.V99.10.3735 11986230
28. Jurczyszyn A Prognostic indicators in primary plasma cell leukaemia: a multicentre retrospective study of 117 patients Br. J. Haematol. 2018 180 831 839 10.1111/bjh.15092 29315478
29. Ramsingh G Mehan P Luo J Vij R Morgensztern D Primary plasma cell leukemia: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database analysis between 1973 and 2004 Cancer 2009 115 5734 5739 10.1002/cncr.24700 19877113
30. Gonsalves WI Trends in survival of patients with primary plasma cell leukemia: a population-based analysis Blood 2014 124 907 912 10.1182/blood-2014-03-565051 24957143 PMC4126330
31. Musto P Progress in the treatment of primary plasma cell leukemia J. Clin. Oncol. 2016 34 2082 2084 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.6115 27114588
32. Mahindra A Hematopoietic cell transplantation for primary plasma cell leukemia: results from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Leukemia 2012 26 1091 1097 10.1038/leu.2011.312 22042147 PMC3274611
33. Royer B 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 2125 2132 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1929 27114594
34. van de Donk NW Lokhorst HM Anderson KC Richardson PG How I treat plasma cell leukemia Blood 2012 120 2376 2389 10.1182/blood-2012-05-408682 22837533 PMC3757364
35. Van De Donk NWCJ Treatment of primary plasma cell leukemia with carfilzomib and lenalidomide-based therapy: results of the first interim analysis of the phase 2 EMN12/HOVON129 study Blood 2019 134 Suppl. 1 693- 10.1182/blood-2019-125120
36. D’Arena G Frontline chemotherapy with bortezomib-containing combinations improves response rate and survival in primary plasma cell leukemia: a retrospective study from GIMEMA Multiple Myeloma Working Party Ann. Oncol. 2012 23 1499 1502 10.1093/annonc/mdr480 22039089
37. Katodritou E Real-world data on prognosis and outcome of primary plasma cell leukemia in the era of novel agents: a multicenter national study by the Greek Myeloma Study Group Blood Cancer J. 2018 8 31 10.1038/s41408-018-0059-6 29523783 PMC5849880
38. Sonneveld P Bortezomib induction and maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III HOVON-65/ GMMG-HD4 trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2012 30 2946 2955 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.6820 22802322
39. Neben K Administration of bortezomib before and after autologous stem cell transplantation improves outcome in multiple myeloma patients with deletion 17p Blood 2012 119 940 948 10.1182/blood-2011-09-379164 22160383
40. Musto P Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone for newly diagnosed primary plasma cell leukemia Leukemia 2014 28 222 225 10.1038/leu.2013.241 23958922
41. Richardson PG Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Blood 2010 116 679 686 10.1182/blood-2010-02-268862 20385792 PMC3324254
42. Richardson PG A phase 2 trial of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and relapsed/refractory myeloma Blood 2014 123 1461 1469 10.1182/blood-2013-07-517276 24429336 PMC4123434
43. Lakshman A Efficacy of VDT PACE-like regimens in treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Am. J. Hematol. 2018 93 179 186 10.1002/ajh.24954 29067723
44. Barlogie B Incorporating bortezomib into upfront treatment for multiple myeloma: early results of total therapy 3 Br. J. Haematol. 2007 138 176 185 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06639.x 17593024
45. Saraceni MM Modified hyperCVAD versus bortezomib-hyperCAD in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 18 e77 e84 10.1016/j.clml.2017.10.008 29169873
46. Jakubowiak AJ Lenalidomide, bortezomib, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a phase 1/2 Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium trial Blood 2011 118 535 543 10.1182/blood-2011-02-334755 21596852 PMC3142898
47. Kumar S Randomized, multicenter, phase 2 study (EVOLUTION) of combinations of bortezomib, dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, and lenalidomide in previously untreated multiple myeloma Blood 2012 119 4375 4382 10.1182/blood-2011-11-395749 22422823
48. Palumbo A Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: an International Myeloma Working Group report Blood 2015 125 2068 2074 10.1182/blood-2014-12-615187 25628469 PMC4375104
49. Voorhees PM Daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the GRIFFIN trial Blood 2020 136 936 945 10.1182/blood.2020005288 32325490 PMC7441167
50. Landgren O Carfilzomib with immunomodulatory drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Leukemia 2019 33 2127 2143 10.1038/s41375-019-0517-6 31341235 PMC6756042
51. Kumar S Updated results from BELLINI, a phase III study of venetoclax or placebo in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 Suppl. 15 8509 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.8509
52. Costa L Phase 2 study of venetoclax plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 Suppl. 15 8004 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.8004
53. Dhakal B Hematopoietic cell transplantation utilization and outcomes for primary plasma cell leukemia in the current era. Leukemia 2020 34 3338 3347 10.1038/s41375-020-0830-0 32313109 PMC7572530
54. Cavo M Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, with or without bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone consolidation therapy, and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (EMN02/HO95): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study Lancet Haematol. 2020 7 e456 e468 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30099-5 32359506
55. Hari P Long-term follow-up of BMT CTN 0702 (STaMINA) of postautologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) strategies in the upfront treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 Suppl. 15 8506 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.8506
56. Freytes CO Second transplants for multiple myeloma relapsing after a previous autotransplant-reduced-intensity allogeneic vs autologous transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 49 416 421 10.1038/bmt.2013.187 24270389 PMC3947725
57. Gahrton G Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in multiple myeloma. European Group for Bone Marrow Transplantation N. Engl. J. Med. 1991 325 1267 1273 10.1056/NEJM199110313251802 1922221
58. Bensinger WI Allogeneic marrow transplantation for multiple myeloma: an analysis of risk factors on outcome Blood 1996 88 2787 2793 10.1182/blood.V88.7.2787.bloodjournal8872787 8839877
59. Crawley C Outcomes for reduced-intensity allogeneic transplantation for multiple myeloma: an analysis of prognostic factors from the Chronic Leukaemia Working Party of the EBMT Blood 2005 105 4532 4539 10.1182/blood-2004-06-2387 15731182
60. Nooka AK Consolidation and maintenance therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (RVD) in high-risk myeloma patients Leukemia 2014 28 690 693 10.1038/leu.2013.335 24220275
61. Kneppers E Lenalidomide maintenance after nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma is not feasible: results of the HOVON 76 Trial Blood 2011 118 2413 2419 10.1182/blood-2011-04-348292 21690556
62. Alsina M Lenalidomide maintenance for high-risk multiple myeloma after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014 20 1183 1189 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.04.014 24769014 PMC5036168
63. Green DJ Tandem autologous/allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with bortezomib maintenance therapy for high-risk myeloma Blood Adv. 2017 1 2247 2256 10.1182/bloodadvances.2017010686 29296873 PMC5737131
64. Nencioni A Proteasome inhibitor bortezomib modulates TLR4-induced dendritic cell activation Blood 2006 108 551 558 10.1182/blood-2005-08-3494 16537813
65. Blanco B Bortezomib induces selective depletion of alloreactive T lymphocytes and decreases the production of Th1 cytokines Blood 2006 107 3575 3583 10.1182/blood-2005-05-2118 16282346
66. Kumar S Efficacy of venetoclax as targeted therapy for relapsed/refractory t(11;14) multiple myeloma Blood 2017 130 2401 2409 10.1182/blood-2017-06-788786 29018077
67. Moreau P Promising efficacy and acceptable safety of venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory MM Blood 2017 130 2392 2400 10.1182/blood-2017-06-788323 28847998
68. Jelinek T Single-agent venetoclax induces MRD-negative response in relapsed primary plasma cell leukemia with t(11;14) Am. J. Hematol. 2019 94 E35 e7 10.1002/ajh.25331 30370955
69. Gonsalves WI Buadi FK Kumar SK Combination therapy incorporating Bcl-2 inhibition with Venetoclax for the treatment of refractory primary plasma cell leukemia with t (11;14) Eur. J. Haematol. 2018 100 215 217 10.1111/ejh.12986 29064593
70. Nalghranyan S Singh AP Schinke C The combination of venetoclax, daratumumab and dexamethasone for the treatment of refractory primary plasma cell leukemia Am. J. Hematol. 2020 95 E34 e5 10.1002/ajh.25676 31709578
71. Raje N Anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy bb2121 in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 1726 1737 10.1056/NEJMoa1817226 31042825 PMC8202968
72. Topp MS Anti-B-cell maturation antigen BiTE molecule AMG 420 induces responses in multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 775 783 10.1200/JCO.19.02657 31895611
73. Trudel S Targeting B-cell maturation antigen with GSK2857916 antibody–drug conjugate in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (BMA117159): a dose escalation and expansion phase 1 trial Lancet Oncol. 2018 19 1641 1653 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30576-X 30442502 PMC6328058
74. Richardson PG Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma: outcomes by prior treatment Blood 2016 127 713 721 10.1182/blood-2015-09-665018 26631116 PMC4760132
75. Chari A Oral selinexor-dexamethasone for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 381 727 738 10.1056/NEJMoa1903455 31433920
76. Laubach J Management of relapsed multiple myeloma: recommendations of the International Myeloma Working Group Leukemia 2016 30 1005 1017 10.1038/leu.2015.356 26710887
77. Kumar SK Carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma without intention for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ENDURANCE): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial Lancet Oncol. 2020 21 1317 1330 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30452-6 32866432 PMC7591827
78. Richardson PG Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 781 794 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30152-4 31097405
79. Popat R Bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone, and panobinostat for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MUK-six): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial Lancet Haematol. 2016 3 e572 e580 10.1016/S2352-3026(16)30165-X 27843120
80. Lonial S Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2015 373 621 631 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654 26035255
81. Lokhorst HM Targeting CD38 with daratumumab monotherapy in multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2015 373 1207 1219 10.1056/NEJMoa1506348 26308596
82. Attal M Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study Lancet 2019 394 2096 2107 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32556-5 31735560
83. Moreau P Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2016 374 1621 1634 10.1056/NEJMoa1516282 27119237
84. Vogl DT Selective inhibition of nuclear export with oral selinexor for treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 859 866 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.5207 29381435 PMC6905485
85. Lonial S Belantamab mafodotin for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-2): a two-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 2 study Lancet Oncol. 2020 21 207 221 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30788-0 31859245
86. Gertz MA Garton JP Greipp PR Witzig TE Kyle RA A phase II study of high-dose methylprednisolone in refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma Leukemia 1995 9 2115 2118 8609725
87. Richardson P Thalidomide for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma after high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation: results of an open-label multicenter phase 2 study of efficacy, toxicity, and biological activity Mayo Clin. Proc. 2004 79 875 882 10.4065/79.7.875 15244383
88. Mateos M HORIZON (OP-106): an exploratory analysis of time-to-next treatment (TTNT) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who received melflufen plus dexamethasone (dex) J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 Suppl. 15 e20570 e20570 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e20570
89. Ocio EM ANCHOR (OP-104): updated efficacy and safety from a phase 1/2 study of melflufen and dexamethasone plus bortezomib or daratumumab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) refractory to an IMiD or a proteasome inhibitor (PI) Blood 2019 134 Suppl. 1 3124 10.1182/blood-2019-124815
90. Richardson PG Interpreting clinical trial data in multiple myeloma: translating findings to the real-world setting Blood Cancer J. 2018 8 109 10.1038/s41408-018-0141-0 30413684 PMC6226527