Evidence Hub

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: a new proposal of workup

Mangiacavalli S, Cocito F, Pochintesta L, Pascutto C, Ferretti V, Varettoni M, Zappasodi P, Pompa A et al.

European journal of haematology, 2013

2,282 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic criteria for monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) require quantification of bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) and skeletal survey to discriminate between MGUS and multiple myeloma (MM). By contrast, recent published guidelines suggest that these procedures could be avoided in the presence of serum monoclonal spike (M-spike) of small amount (≤1.5 g/dL). Aim of this study is to better quantify the risk of missing a diagnosis of MM, not performing bone marrow aspirate and skeletal survey in patients with M-spike ≤ 1.5 g/dL asymptomatic for bone pain.

METHODS: We reviewed data of 2282 patients consecutively observed from January 1974 to December 2010 in our single hematology department. We considered eligible for this study 1271 patients with grade <2 NCI bone pain, confirmed to have an MGUS or an MM after extensive standardized diagnostic workup including bone marrow biopsy, skeletal bone survey and laboratory tests.

RESULTS: The risk of finding a BMPC infiltration ≥10% in patients with an M-spike ≤ 1.5 g/dL was very low (7.3%), although significantly different according to IgH isotype (4.7% for IgG vs. 20.5% for IgA). The risk of finding bone lesions with M-spike ≤ 1.5 g/dL was negligible (2.5%), regardless of IgH isotype.

CONCLUSION: In asymptomatic patients with M-spike of small amount (≤1.5 g/dL): (i) BMPC evaluation may be reasonably avoided in patients with IgG M-spike, while should always be part of diagnostic workup in the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,282 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free