Skip to main content
UKPMC Funders Author Manuscripts logoLink to UKPMC Funders Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Aug 22.
Published in final edited form as: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Jun 15;20(8):1703–1707. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0157

Gender Disparities in the Tumor Genetics and Clinical Outcome of Multiple Myeloma

Kevin D Boyd 1, Fiona M Ross 2, Laura Chiecchio 2, GianPaolo Dagrada 2, Zoe J Konn 2, William J Tapper 2, Brian A Walker 1, Christopher P Wardell 1, Walter M Gregory 3, Alex J Szubert 3, Faith E Davies 1, Gareth J Morgan 1,*
PMCID: PMC4545514  EMSID: EMS35730  PMID: 21680536

Abstract

Background

Several cancer types have differences in incidence and clinical outcome dependent on gender, but these are not well described in myeloma. The aim of this study was to characterize gender disparities in myeloma.

Methods

We investigated the association of gender with the prevalence of tumor genetic lesions and the clinical outcome of 1960 patients enrolled in the phase III clinical trial MRC Myeloma IX. Genetic lesions were characterized by FISH.

Results

Disparities were found in the prevalence of primary genetic lesions with IGH translocations being more common in women (50% of female patients vs 38% of male patients, p<0.001) and hyperdiploidy being more common in men (50% female vs 62% male, p<0.001). There were also differences in secondary genetic events with del(13q) (52% female vs 41% male, p<0.001) and +1q (43% female vs 36% male, p=0.042) being found more frequently in female myeloma patients. Female gender was associated with inferior overall survival (median 44.8 months female vs 49.9 months male, p=0.020).

Conclusions

We found gender-dependent differences in the prevalence of the primary genetic events of myeloma, with IGH translocations being more common in women and hyperdiploidy more common in men. This genetic background may impact subsequent genetic events such as +1q and del(13q), which were both more frequent in women. The higher prevalence of lesions associated with poor prognosis in the female myeloma population, such as t(4;14), t(14;16) and +1q, may adversely affect clinical outcome.

Impact

These differences suggest that gender influences the primary genetic events of myeloma.

Keywords: Myeloma, Gender, Etiology, Prognosis, Survival

Introduction

Several cancer types have differences in incidence and clinical outcome dependent on gender (1). Lung cancer, for example, is more common in men, and women with lung cancer have better survival than men(2). Moreover, a sex-specific tumor genomic profile has been described in lung cancer, strongly suggesting that there is a gender-specific phenotype (2-3). These data suggest that gender can influence the etiology and natural history of some malignancies.

In myeloma the primary genetic lesions that give rise to a clonal plasma cell population are hyperdiploidy and immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IGH) translocations (4). Hyperdiploidy in myeloma is characterized by gain of multiple odd numbered chromosomes, and the events giving rise to this abnormality are not well understood. IGH translocations arise following aberrant class switch recombination events during B cell differentiation, and feature reciprocal translocation of the IGH allele at 14q32, usually with one of 5 partner oncogenes (MMSET, CCND1, CCND3, MAF or MAFB) (5), (6). These two etiological pathways have been used to classify myeloma patients into a hyperdiploid group, and non-hyperdiploid group characterized by a high rate of IGH translocations (5, 7). These early genetic events give rise to a clonal plasma cell population, with further events such as structural chromosomal abnormalities, mutation and epigenetic changes required for progression to malignancy (8-10).

It is unknown why these pathogenic events occur in certain individuals, but evidence of genetic susceptibility is suggested by an increased incidence of myeloma in first degree relatives of myeloma patients, within some family groups, and in certain racial groups. Several large population-based studies have found that first-degree relatives of subjects with myeloma or monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) have an increased risk of developing a plasma cell dyscrasia (11-13). Further evidence of hereditable susceptibility is provided by familial clusters of MGUS and myeloma (14-16). Racial background has been shown to be important, with myeloma being twice as common in African Americans as white Americans and least common in Americans of Asian origin(17). The pre-malignant condition that precedes myeloma, MGUS, has a similar pattern suggesting that the higher rate of myeloma in African Americans is due to different rates of primary genetic events as opposed to secondary progression events (18-19).

Gender could also exert similar effects. We have investigated the relationship of gender to the risk of developing myeloma, the prevalence of tumor genetic lesions and the clinical outcome of patients enrolled in the MRC Myeloma IX trial.

Method

Patients

1960 patients were enrolled in the MRC Myeloma IX phase III clinical trial (ISRCTN68454111) (MREC/02/8/95), the design and results of which are described elsewhere (20). Patients over the age of 18 years newly diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma requiring treatment were eligible for selection. Exclusion criteria were concurrent active malignancy excluding basal cell carcinoma and other in situ carcinomas, previous myeloma therapy and acute renal failure not responsive to rehydration. The trial compared conventional induction chemotherapy with a thalidomide-based regimen, and incorporated high dose melphalan for younger, fitter patients. Median follow-up was 3.7 years.

FISH

Diagnostic bone marrow aspirates were purified for plasma cells using CD138 magnetic microbeads (Miltenyi Biotec). Material for fluoresence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis was available from 58.2% of the enrolled patients (1140 patients). Probes were chosen to detect the presence of an IGH translocation, the common IGH translocation partners (4p16, 6p21, 11q13, 16q23 and 20q12), hyperdiploid status using the iFISH ploidy classification, deletion of 1p32, 13q14, 16q23, 22q11 and gain of 1q21 as previously described (21-22).

Statistical Methods

Statistical analysis tools were SPSS v.19 and R. Analysis of differences in baseline clinical and laboratory variables used the Fisher exact, χ2 and the nonparametric Wilcoxon tests. Progression free survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) were calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves, with the difference between the curves analyzed using the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using the proportional hazards regression model of Cox. All p values were two-sided, and values <0.05 were taken as significant.

Results / Discussion

Of the 1960 patients enrolled in the trial, 1165 (59.4%) were male and 795 (40.6%) were female. These figures are consistent with population-based statistics, with incidence rates of 4.4 per 100,000 in men and 2.9 per 100,000 in women equating to a 60/40 split (17). There were few significant differences in baseline clinical and laboratory variables (supplementary data Table 1). The median age of female trial patients was two years older than for men (64 years male vs 66 years female, p=0.007) and female patients were associated with higher levels of serum lactate dehydrogenase, which have been linked to adverse prognosis (median 320 U/L male vs 345 U/L female, p<0.001) (23).

The different incidence of myeloma in men and women suggests that gender may influence etiological events. In this context we found differences in the rates of primary pathogenetic lesions dependant on gender (Table 1). IGH translocations were more common in women (50.1% of female patients vs 37.9% of male patients, p<0.001). When the IGH translocations were examined based on the 5 common partner genes, all groups were found at higher frequencies in female patients, with the most significant differences seen in the t(4;14) group (14.7% of female patients vs 9.3% of male patients, p=0.009) and t(14;16) group (5.7% of female patients vs 1.6% of male, p<0.001). Conversely, hyperdiploidy was more common in men than women (49.7% of female patients vs 61.7% of male patients, p<0.001).

Table 1.

A comparison of the incidence of tumor genetic lesions detected by FISH in male and female patients.

Variable Male Female p=
Yes (n=) No (n=) % positive Yes (n=) No (n=) % positive
Abnormal Karyotype 129 252 33.9 95 143 39.9 0.140
Hyperdiploidy 384 238 61.7 195 197 49.7 <0.001
Any IGH Translocation 239 392 37.9 204 203 50.1 <0.001
t(4;14) 60 585 9.3 60 348 14.7 0.009
t(6;14) 4 629 0.6 4 396 1.0 0.718
t(11;14) 81 564 12.6 65 341 16.0 0.120
t(14;16) 10 634 1.6 23 379 5.7 <0.001
t(14;20) 9 631 1.4 7 394 1.7 0.797
del(1p) 53 479 10.0 43 284 13.1 0.181
del(13q) 256 375 40.6 214 195 52.3 <0.001
del(16q) 102 465 18.0 75 295 20.3 0.394
del(17p) 55 563 8.9 30 366 7.6 0.489
del(22q) 62 440 12.4 45 290 13.4 0.673
+1q 200 352 36.2 151 199 43.1 0.042

A range of chromosomal regional deletions and gains were examined and both del(13q) and +1q were found to be more frequent in female patients (del(13q): 52.3% of female patients vs 40.6% of male patients, p<0.001; +1q: 43.1% of female patients vs 36.2% of male patients, p=0.042). Both these lesions showed a significant positive association with IGH translocations in the overall dataset, and were negatively associated with hyperdiploidy so it is likely that their increased frequency in female patients was a secondary consequence of the underlying rates of hyperdiploidy and IGH translocations. No gender differences were seen in the prevalence of del(1p), del(16q), del(17p) or del(22q), and there were no differences in the percentage of men and women with abnormal karyotypes by conventional cytogenetics (Table 1).

Survival differences were observed when comparing the sexes, with female gender being associated with impaired OS (median OS 44.8 months female vs 49.9 months male, p=0.020) (figure 1) (supplementary data Table 2). There was also a trend towards impaired PFS for women which did not reach a level of significance (median 16.0 months female vs 19.9 months male, p=0.105). The association of gender with OS was not significant in multivariate analysis, suggesting that competing variables were involved (supplementary data Table 3). Age may play a small role, as the median age of women in the trial was 2 years older than men, and when age-adjusted the association of female gender with impaired survival becomes less significant (p=0.079). However, more significant is the fact that the genetic lesions that were more common in women (t(4;14), t(14;16), del(13q) and +1q) were all strongly associated with impaired survival in univariate analysis, with t(4;14), t(14;16) and +1q being associated with short survival in multivariate testing (supplementary data table 3). In bivariate analysis with any of these lesions, gender ceases to be significantly associated with OS, so the genetic background of male and female patients is likely to play an important role in the observed survival differences. Overall, we think that the moderate impairment in survival associated with female gender mainly reflects the increased prevalence of adverse genetic lesions in female myeloma patients.

Figure 1. Overall survival of male and female patients in the Myeloma IX trial.

Figure 1

Female median OS was 44.8 months compared with 49.9 months for males.

A caveat of any clinical trial study, when compared to a population-based study, is that trial selection criteria may introduce bias that affect the generalizability of findings to the overall population. In comparison with many clinical trials, the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the MRC Myeloma IX trial were not strict so that trial participants were representative of the general myeloma population. Unusually, it was a trial designed for myeloma patients of all ages, with the age range of enrolled patients being 31 – 89 years, with a median age of 65. This is slightly lower than the median age at diagnosis reported in population statistics (69 years), perhaps reflecting a reluctance of clinicians to enter older, frailer patients into clinical trials (17). To address this possible bias we specifically examined the prevalence of genetic abnormalities in patients aged 70 or over (n=380). This subgroup analysis corroborated the original findings, with IGH translocations being more common in older female patients (48.6% of female patients vs 34.6% of male patients, p=0.013) and hyperdiploidy being more frequent in older male patients (50.4% of female patients vs 65.6% of male patients, p=0.008). The gender mix of the trial patients was identical to population data, suggesting that gender selection was unbiased. 97% of patients were Caucasian, so these findings require validation in other ethnic groups.

In summary we found gender-dependent differences in the prevalence of IGH translocations and hyperdiploidy in newly presenting myeloma patients, with IGH translocations being more common in women and hyperdiploidy more common in men. This genetic background may impact subsequent genetic events such as +1q and del(13q), which were both more frequent in women. The relevance of these findings is that it helps to explain the observed gender-dependant survival differences, with female gender being associated with impaired survival due to the increased frequency of genetic lesions associated with poor clinical outcome, especially t(4;14), t(14;16) and +1q. Moreover, it also implies that gender may influence the etiological events of myeloma. Women have a lower risk of developing myeloma, and are more likely to develop myeloma as a result of aberrant class switch recombination events. Conversely, men have a higher risk of developing myeloma, and are more likely to develop myeloma as a result of hyperdiploidy. Whilst a genetic basis for myeloma risk has been suggested to be due to variation in genes associated with innate immunity or cell cycle, these have not been reported to be different in men and women (24-25). It is possible that IGH translocations or hyperdiploidy may in some way be influenced by variation in genes situated on the sex chromosomes, or by hormonal differences between men and women, and this should be a focus for further study.

Supplementary Material

1
2
3
4

Acknowledgements

We thank Rebecca Protheroe, David Stockley, Tim Parker, Hazel Robinson, Elisabet Dachs Cabanas and Christina Rudduck of the LLR UKMF Cytogenetics group for probe preparation and FISH scoring. We also thank staff from the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, for trial co-ordination and data management. We acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research, through the National Cancer Research Network.

Financial Support:

Main financial support for the MRC Myeloma IX clinical trial was from UK Medical Research Council, with additional funding in the form of unrestricted educational grants from Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene and Ortho Biotech. The LLR UKMF Cytogenetics group received financial support from Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research. The Institute of Cancer Research received support from Cancer Research UK, Myeloma UK and the biological research centre of the National Institute for Health Research at the Royal Marsden Hospital.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest:

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest

References

  • 1.Oberaigner W, Siebert U. Do women with cancer have better survival as compared to men after adjusting for staging distribution? Eur J Public Health. 2010 doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckq099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wisnivesky JP, Halm EA. Sex differences in lung cancer survival: do tumors behave differently in elderly women? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1705–12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.1455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mostertz W, Stevenson M, Acharya C, Chan I, Walters K, Lamlertthon W, et al. Age- and sex-specific genomic profiles in non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;303:535–43. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gonzalez D, van der Burg M, Garcia-Sanz R, Fenton JA, Langerak AW, Gonzalez M, et al. Immunoglobulin gene rearrangements and the pathogenesis of multiple myeloma. Blood. 2007;110:3112–21. doi: 10.1182/blood-2007-02-069625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fonseca R, Bergsagel PL, Drach J, Shaughnessy J, Gutierrez N, Stewart AK, et al. International Myeloma Working Group molecular classification of multiple myeloma: spotlight review. Leukemia. 2009;23:2210–21. doi: 10.1038/leu.2009.174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bergsagel PL, Kuehl WM. Molecular pathogenesis and a consequent classification of multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6333–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fonseca RD-MC, Picken EB, et al. The recurrent IgH translocations are highly associated with non-hyperdiploid variant multiple myeloma. Blood. 2003;102:2562–7. doi: 10.1182/blood-2003-02-0493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Walker BA, Leone PE, Jenner MW, Li C, Gonzalez D, Johnson DC, et al. Integration of global SNP-based mapping and expression arrays reveals key regions, mechanisms, and genes important in the pathogenesis of multiple myeloma. Blood. 2006;108:1733–43. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-02-005496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Leone PE, Walker BA, Jenner MW, Chiecchio L, Dagrada G, Protheroe RK, et al. Deletions of CDKN2C in multiple myeloma: biological and clinical implications. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:6033–41. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Walker BA, Leone PE, Chiecchio L, Dickens NJ, Jenner MW, Boyd KD, et al. A compendium of myeloma-associated chromosomal copy number abnormalities and their prognostic value. Blood. 2010;116:e56–65. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-04-279596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vachon CM, Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Foreman BJ, Larson DR, Colby CL, et al. Increased risk of monoclonal gammopathy in first-degree relatives of patients with multiple myeloma or monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Blood. 2009;114:785–90. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-12-192575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Landgren O, Kristinsson SY, Goldin LR, Caporaso NE, Blimark C, Mellqvist UH, et al. Risk of plasma cell and lymphoproliferative disorders among 14621 first-degree relatives of 4458 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in Sweden. Blood. 2009;114:791–5. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-12-191676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kristinsson SY, Bjorkholm M, Goldin LR, Blimark C, Mellqvist UH, Wahlin A, et al. Patterns of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors among 37,838 first-degree relatives of 13,896 patients with multiple myeloma in Sweden. International journal of cancer. 2009;125:2147–50. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24514. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bizzaro N, Pasini P. Familial occurrence of multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in 5 siblings. Haematologica. 1990;75:58–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lynch HT, Ferrara K, Barlogie B, Coleman EA, Lynch JF, Weisenburger D, et al. Familial myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:152–7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0708704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lynch HT, Thome SD. Familial multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;114:749–50. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-03-207233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Altekruse SFKC, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK, editors. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007. National Cancer Institute; Bethesda M: 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Landgren O, Rajkumar SV, Pfeiffer RM, Kyle RA, Katzmann JA, Dispenzieri A, et al. Obesity is associated with an increased risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance among black and white women. Blood. 116:1056–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-01-262394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Landgren O, Weiss BM. Patterns of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and multiple myeloma in various ethnic/racial groups: support for genetic factors in pathogenesis. Leukemia. 2009;23:1691–7. doi: 10.1038/leu.2009.134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Morgan GJ, Davies FE, Gregory WM, Cocks K, Bell SE, Szubert AJ, et al. First-line treatment with zoledronic acid as compared with clodronic acid in multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376:1989–99. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62051-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chiecchio L, Protheroe RK, Ibrahim AH, Cheung KL, Rudduck C, Dagrada GP, et al. Deletion of chromosome 13 detected by conventional cytogenetics is a critical prognostic factor in myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20:1610–7. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chiecchio L, Dagrada GP, Ibrahim AH, Dachs Cabanas E, Protheroe RK, Stockley DM, et al. Timing of acquisition of deletion 13 in plasma cell dyscrasias is dependent on genetic context. Haematologica. 2009;94:1708–13. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2009.011064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Terpos E, Katodritou E, Roussou M, Pouli A, Michalis E, Delimpasi S, et al. High serum lactate dehydrogenase adds prognostic value to the international myeloma staging system even in the era of novel agents. European journal of haematology. 2010;85:114–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2010.01466.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hosgood HD, 3rd, Baris D, Zhang Y, Berndt SI, Menashe I, Morton LM, et al. Genetic variation in cell cycle and apoptosis related genes and multiple myeloma risk. Leuk Res. 2009;33:1609–14. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2009.03.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Purdue MP, Lan Q, Menashe I, Zheng T, Zhang Y, Yeager M, et al. Variation in innate immunity genes and risk of multiple myeloma. Hematol Oncol. 2011;29:42–6. doi: 10.1002/hon.954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
2
3
4

RESOURCES