» Articles » PMID: 38206744

New Diagnostic Strategy for Multiple Myeloma: A Review

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2024 Jan 11
PMID 38206744
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most prevalent hematological malignancy and is distinguished by the aberrant proliferation of monoclonal plasma cells inside the bone marrow and production of M-protein. This condition frequently results in bone deterioration, acute kidney damage, anemia, and hypercalcemia. However, the clinical manifestations and accompanying symptoms of MM vary and may change as the condition evolves. Therefore, diagnosis of MM is difficult. At present, the confirmation of MM diagnosis necessitates the use of bone marrow biopsy, a procedure that is both invasive and challenging for assessing dynamic alterations in the disease. The integration of laboratory testing technologies with imaging technology has the potential to enhance the diagnostic effectiveness and provide a thorough evaluation of disease progression and prognosis in patients with MM. All the examination methods have advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, diagnosis is determined by the application of clinical characteristics, serological tests, and imaging investigations.

Citing Articles

miR‑1343‑3p inhibits autophagy by directly targeting ATG7 in multiple myeloma cells.

Guo Y, Ding X, Dai C, Wang W, Chen J, Chen S Biomed Rep. 2024; 21(6):185.

PMID: 39420924 PMC: 11484188. DOI: 10.3892/br.2024.1873.


Navigating the clinical landscape: Update on the diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in multiple myeloma.

Raghunathachar S, Krishnamurthy K, Gopalaiah L, Abhijith D, Prashant A, Parichay S Mol Biol Rep. 2024; 51(1):972.

PMID: 39249557 DOI: 10.1007/s11033-024-09892-w.


Role of Non-Coding RNAs in Diagnosis, Prediction and Prognosis of Multiple Myeloma.

Dubaj M, Bigosinski K, Dembowska A, Mlak R, Szudy-Szczyrek A, Malecka-Massalska T Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(5).

PMID: 38473390 PMC: 10931522. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16051033.

References
1.
Thomas C, Schabel C, Krauss B, Weisel K, Bongers M, Claussen C . Dual-energy CT: virtual calcium subtraction for assessment of bone marrow involvement of the spine in multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 204(3):W324-31. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12613. View

2.
Krhovska P, Pika T, Proskova J, Balcarkova J, Zapletalova J, Bacovsky J . Bone metabolism parameters and their relation to cytogenetics in multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 2022; 109(1):75-82. DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13771. View

3.
Bredella M, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R . Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184(4):1199-204. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841199. View

4.
Li S, Wang Y, Qi J, Qiu L . Clinical Features of Bone Complications and Prognostic Value of Bone Lesions Detected by X-ray Skeletal Survey in Previously Untreated Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2011; 26(3):83-8. PMC: 3002090. DOI: 10.1007/s12288-010-0033-3. View

5.
Mule S, Reizine E, Blanc-Durand P, Baranes L, Zerbib P, Burns R . Whole-Body Functional MRI and PET/MRI in Multiple Myeloma. Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12(11). PMC: 7693006. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12113155. View