Effect of plasma exchange combined with classical chemotherapy on renal function in patients with multiple myeloma

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2025.07.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective ·To investigate the effect of plasma exchange combined with classical chemotherapy on renal function in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Methods ·A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from patients newly diagnosed with MM in the Department of Hematology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, between October 2021 and September 2023. Sixty-eight MM patients admitted from October 2021 to September 2022 served as the control group, and 41 patients admitted from October 2022 to September 2023 comprised the experimental group. The control group received classical chemotherapy for MM [PAD (bortezomib+adriamycin+dexamethasone) or PCD (bortezomib+cyclophosphamide+dexamethasone)], and the experimental group underwent plasma exchange before classic chemotherapy. The frequency of plasma exchange was determined according to the clearance rate of M-protein in patients, with the criterion being a reduction of more than 40% in plasma M-protein levels after exchange, and the total number of exchanges ranged from 1 to 3 sessions. After 2 chemotherapy courses, the free light chain difference (dFLC), serum creatinine (Scr), and other renal function indexes were compared between the two groups. Results ·Compared with the control group, the experimental group showed no statistically significant difference in dFLC levels. The Scr level decreased [67.00 (54.00, 75.00) μmol/L vs 77.50 (63.00, 94.00) μmol/L, P=0.011], and the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) increased [97.80 (92.80, 101.30) mL/(min·1.73 m²) vs 85.80 (61.35, 95.35) mL/(min·1.73 m²), P<0.001] after treatment. Before treatment, the numbers of patients with MM-related severe renal injury [eGFR<50 mL/(min·1.73 m²)] were 41 in the control group and 28 in the experimental group. After treatment, 8 patients (19.51%) in the control group achieved complete renal response [eGFR≥60 mL/(min·1.73 m²)], while 12 patients (42.86%) in the experimental group achieved the same, with the difference being statistically significant (P=0.036). After two courses of treatment, the overall response rates (ORR) of the control group and the experimental group were 76.47% and 92.68%, respectively, and the difference in overall therapeutic efficacy was statistically significant (P=0.031). Conclusion ·Plasma exchange combined with classical chemotherapy can significantly reduce the Scr levels and increase eGFR in MM patients within a short period, ameliorating the MM-related renal impairment to some extent and improving clinical treatment outcomes.

Key words: multiple myeloma (MM), plasma exchange, creatinine, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), therapeutic effect

CLC Number:

R551.2

LIN Tong, TAO Yi, JIN Shiwei, SUN Miao, MI Jianqing. Effect of plasma exchange combined with classical chemotherapy on renal function in patients with multiple myeloma[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2025, 45(7): 823-828.

Figures/Tables 2

TrendMD

References 24

[1]	PADALA S A, BARSOUK A, BARSOUK A, et al. Epidemiology, staging, and management of multiple myeloma[J]. Med Sci (Basel), 2021, 9(1): 3.
[2]	RAJKUMAR S V. Multiple myeloma: 2020 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management[J]. Am J Hematol, 2020, 95(5): 548-567.
[3]	COWAN A J, GREEN D J, KWOK M, et al. Diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma: a review[J]. JAMA, 2022, 327(5): 464-477.
[4]	BRIGLE K, ROGERS B. Pathobiology and diagnosis of multiple myeloma[J]. Semin Oncol Nurs, 2017, 33(3): 225-236.
[5]	BRODY H. Multiple myeloma[J]. Nature, 2011, 480(7377): S33.
[6]	ȘTEFAN G, CINCA S, CHIRIAC C, et al. Multiple myeloma and kidney impairment at diagnosis: a nephrological perspective from an eastern European country[J]. Medicina (Kaunas), 2023, 59(7): 1326.
[7]	CHOI T, AHN W, SHIN D W, et al. Association between kidney function, proteinuria and the risk of multiple myeloma: a population-based retrospective cohort study in south Korea[J]. Cancer Res Treat, 2022, 54(3): 926-936.
[8]	GUO Y G, ZHANG L L, ZHANG R Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of plasmapheresis without plasma transfusion tandem with chemotherapy to treat multiple myeloma[J]. Hematology, 2022, 27(1): 1217-1222.
[9]	李章志, 张露璐, 郭毅刚, 等. 无血浆的血浆置换术联合化疗在多发性骨髓瘤治疗中的作用及安全性研究[J]. 临床内科杂志, 2022, 39(5): 322-325.
	LI Z Z, ZHANG L L, GUO Y G, et al. The role and safety of plasma-free plasmapheresis combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of multiple myeloma[J]. Journal of Clinical Internal Medicine, 2022, 39(5): 322-325.
[10]	何凤娥, 刘依霜, 陈应红. 血浆置换在多发性骨髓瘤患者中的应用效果观察[J]. 全科口腔医学电子杂志, 2019, 6(23): 145-146.
	HE F E, LIU Y S, CHEN Y H. Observation on the application effect of plasma exchange in patients with multiple myeloma[J]. Electronic Journal of General Stomatology, 2019, 6(23): 145-146.
[11]	高菲, 王佳, 欧焘, 等. 多发性骨髓瘤伴高黏滞综合征和肾功能损害患者行血浆置换术序贯化疗临床观察[J]. 中国输血杂志, 2017, 30(7): 708-710.
	GAO F, WANG J, OU T, et al. Plasma exchange followed by chemotherapy treatment for multiple-myeloma patients with high viscosity syndromeand renal dysfunction: a clinical analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Blood Transfusion, 2017, 30(7): 708-710.
[12]	DIMOPOULOS M A, MERLINI G, BRIDOUX F, et al. Management of multiple myeloma-related renal impairment: recommendations from the International Myeloma Working Group[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2023, 24(7): e293-e311.
[13]	中国医师协会血液科医师分会, 中华医学会血液学分会. 中国多发性骨髓瘤诊治指南(2022年修订)[J]. 中华内科杂志, 2022, 61(5): 480-487.
	Chinese Hematology Association, Chinese Society of Hematology. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma in China (2022 revision)[J]. Chinese Journal of Internal Medicine, 2022, 61(5): 480-487.
[14]	彭彰婧, 杨亦彬. 多发性骨髓瘤肾病的诊治进展[J]. 医学综述, 2020, 26(2): 291-295.
	PENG Z J, YANG Y B. Progress in diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma nephropathy[J]. Medical Recapitulate, 2020, 26(2): 291-295.
[15]	陈文明. 多发性骨髓瘤诊治进展[J]. 临床内科杂志, 2021, 38(12): 793-796.
	CHEN W M. Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma[J]. Journal of Clinical Internal Medicine, 2021, 38(12): 793-796.
[16]	吕芸辉, 陈楠. 单克隆免疫球蛋白病肾损害诊断与治疗进展[J]. 中国实用内科杂志, 2018, 38(6): 549-552.
	LÜ Y H, CHEN N. Progress of the diagnosis and treatment of monoclonal gammopathy[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Internal Medicine, 2018, 38(6): 549-552.
[17]	陈飞, 黄仲夏. 肾意义单克隆免疫球蛋白血症的诊治进展[J]. 肿瘤学杂志, 2020, 26(2): 92-97.
	CHEN F, HUANG Z X. Research progress of the diagnosis and treatment in monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance[J]. Journal of Chinese Oncology, 2020, 26(2): 92-97.
[18]	陈文明. 我如何治疗伴肾功能不全的多发性骨髓瘤[J]. 中华血液学杂志, 2021, 42(2): 97-100.
	CHEN W M. How I treat multiple myeloma with renal impairment[J]. Chinese Journal of Hematology, 2021, 42(2): 97-100.
[19]	DIMOPOULOS M A, SONNEVELD P, LEUNG N, et al. International Myeloma Working Group recommendations for the diagnosis and management of myeloma-related renal impairment[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2016, 34(13): 1544-1557.
[20]	SETHI J, RAMACHANDRAN R, MALHOTRA P, et al. Plasma exchange in the management of new onset multiple myeloma with cast nephropathy treated with bortezomib based chemotherapy[J]. Nephrology (Carlton), 2017, 22(12): 1035-1036.
[21]	UEDA H, KUNO H, TAKAHASHI D, et al. Plasma exchange combined with bortezomib-based chemotherapy is effective for early renal recovery in a patient with IgD-λ type multiple myeloma[J]. CEN Case Rep, 2020, 9(2): 165-172.
[22]	MOREAU P, KUMAR S K, SAN MIGUEL J, et al. Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: recommendations from the International Myeloma Working Group[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2021, 22(3): e105-e118.
[23]	HEHER E C, RENNKE H G, LAUBACH J P, et al. Kidney disease and multiple myeloma[J]. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2013, 8(11): 2007-2017.
[24]	KIMMICH C R, TERZER T, BENNER A, et al. Daratumumab for systemic AL amyloidosis: prognostic factors and adverse outcome with nephrotic-range albuminuria[J]. Blood, 2020, 135(18): 1517-1530.

Item	Control group (n=68)	Experimental group (n=41)	χ²/Z value	P value
Gender/n(%)			0.850	0.357
Female	31 (45.59)	15 (36.59)
Male	37 (54.41)	26 (63.41)
Age/n(%)			2.114	0.146
<65 years	19 (27.94)	17 (41.46)
≥65 years	49 (72.06)	24 (58.54)
ISS/n(%)			1.657	0.198
Ⅰ+Ⅱ	48 (70.59)	24 (58.54)
Ⅲ	20 (29.41)	17 (41.46)
M-protein/n(%)			3.111	0.078
Non-IgG type	26 (38.24)	9 (21.95)
IgG type	42 (61.76)	32 (78.05)
ALB/n(%)			1.655	0.198
<30 g·L^-1	51 (75.00)	26 (63.41)
≥30 g·L^-1	17 (25.00)	15 (36.59)
β2-MG/n(%)			2.755	0.097
<3 000 ng·L^-1	29 (42.65)	11 (26.83)
≥3 000 ng·L^-1	39 (57.35)	30 (73.17)
ECOG score/n(%)			3.693	0.055
0‒1	49 (72.06)	36 (87.80)
≥2	19 (27.94)	5 (12.20)
Cytogenetic risk/n(%)
Standard-risk	22 (32.35)	14 (34.15)	0.037	0.847
High-risk	46 (67.65)	27 (65.85)
M-protein (IgG type)/(g·L^-1)	46.24 (24.97, 63.03)	49.38 (25.61, 69.81)	-0.581	0.561
Serum free κ chain/(mg·L^-1)	29.30 (10.55, 309.00)	38.20 (10.50, 164.00)	-0.015	0.988
Serum free λ chain/(mg·L^-1)	18.50 (9.43, 150.50)	18.00 (9.51, 388.00)	-0.456	0.649
dFLC/(mg·L^-1)	249.00 (87.19, 734.24)	380.99 (97.30, 03.70)	-0.063	0.950
Scr/(μmol·L^-1)	80.50 (66.75, 121.25)	85.00 (69.00, 113.00)	-0.388	0.698
eGFR/[mL·(min·1.73 m²)^-1]	80.50 (42.83, 95.05)	83.00 (51.90, 93.90)	-0.103	0.918

Item	Control group (n=68)	Experimental group (n=41)	χ²/Z value	P value
Gender/n(%)			0.850	0.357
Female	31 (45.59)	15 (36.59)
Male	37 (54.41)	26 (63.41)
Age/n(%)			2.114	0.146
<65 years	19 (27.94)	17 (41.46)
≥65 years	49 (72.06)	24 (58.54)
ISS/n(%)			1.657	0.198
Ⅰ+Ⅱ	48 (70.59)	24 (58.54)
Ⅲ	20 (29.41)	17 (41.46)
M-protein/n(%)			3.111	0.078
Non-IgG type	26 (38.24)	9 (21.95)
IgG type	42 (61.76)	32 (78.05)
ALB/n(%)			1.655	0.198
<30 g·L^-1	51 (75.00)	26 (63.41)
≥30 g·L^-1	17 (25.00)	15 (36.59)
β2-MG/n(%)			2.755	0.097
<3 000 ng·L^-1	29 (42.65)	11 (26.83)
≥3 000 ng·L^-1	39 (57.35)	30 (73.17)
ECOG score/n(%)			3.693	0.055
0‒1	49 (72.06)	36 (87.80)
≥2	19 (27.94)	5 (12.20)
Cytogenetic risk/n(%)
Standard-risk	22 (32.35)	14 (34.15)	0.037	0.847
High-risk	46 (67.65)	27 (65.85)
M-protein (IgG type)/(g·L^-1)	46.24 (24.97, 63.03)	49.38 (25.61, 69.81)	-0.581	0.561
Serum free κ chain/(mg·L^-1)	29.30 (10.55, 309.00)	38.20 (10.50, 164.00)	-0.015	0.988
Serum free λ chain/(mg·L^-1)	18.50 (9.43, 150.50)	18.00 (9.51, 388.00)	-0.456	0.649
dFLC/(mg·L^-1)	249.00 (87.19, 734.24)	380.99 (97.30, 03.70)	-0.063	0.950
Scr/(μmol·L^-1)	80.50 (66.75, 121.25)	85.00 (69.00, 113.00)	-0.388	0.698
eGFR/[mL·(min·1.73 m²)^-1]	80.50 (42.83, 95.05)	83.00 (51.90, 93.90)	-0.103	0.918

Item	Control group (n=68)	Experimental group (n=41)	χ²/Z value	P value
Renal function index
dFLC	22.48 (5.43, 298.98)	18.47 (8.10, 70.80)	-0.522	0.601
Scr	77.50 (63.00, 94.00)	67.00 (54.00, 75.00)	-2.531	0.011
eGFR	85.80 (61.35, 95.35)	97.80 (92.80, 101.30)	-3.750	<0.001
Renal response^①			4.405	0.036
Non-complete response	33 (80.49)	16 (57.14)
Complete response	8 (19.51)	12 (42.86)
Overall response			4.671	0.031
<PR	16 (23.53)	3 (7.32)
ORR	52 (76.47)	38 (92.68)

Item	Control group (n=68)	Experimental group (n=41)	χ²/Z value	P value
Renal function index
dFLC	22.48 (5.43, 298.98)	18.47 (8.10, 70.80)	-0.522	0.601
Scr	77.50 (63.00, 94.00)	67.00 (54.00, 75.00)	-2.531	0.011
eGFR	85.80 (61.35, 95.35)	97.80 (92.80, 101.30)	-3.750	<0.001
Renal response^①			4.405	0.036
Non-complete response	33 (80.49)	16 (57.14)
Complete response	8 (19.51)	12 (42.86)
Overall response			4.671	0.031
<PR	16 (23.53)	3 (7.32)
ORR	52 (76.47)	38 (92.68)