Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance
The term “monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance” (MGUS) was introduced over three decades ago. MGUS is defined as a serum M (monoclonal) protein < 3 g/dL, < 10% clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow, and most importantly, the absence of end-organ damage that can be attributed to the plasma cell proliferative disorder. End-organ damage is characterized by CRAB features (hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency, anemia, bone lesions) related to the plasma cell proliferative disorder.
Recognition of a monoclonal gammopathy
If myeloma or a related disorder is suspected, a patient can be screened effectively for an M protein using serum protein electrophoresis, serum immunofixation, and the free light chain (FLC) assay. Agarose gel electrophoresis is the preferred method for detection of an M protein. If a localized band or spike or suspicion of either is found, immunofixation is needed to confirm the presence of an M protein and to determine its heavy chain and light chain type.
All patients who present with back pain, anemia, renal insufficiency, hypercalcemia, age-inappropriate osteopenia, or osteolytic lesions must be screened for the presence of an M protein. Utilizing only serum protein electrophoresis, serum immunofixation, and the FLC assay, 426 of 428 patients with MGUS, smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), multiple myeloma (MM), AL amyloidosis, or solitary plasmacytoma were identified. Electrophoresis and immunofixation of an aliquot from a 24-hour urine specimen were unnecessary for screening, but these must be done if a serum M protein is found. In a recent study, 94% of 1,877 patients with a monoclonal plasma cell proliferative disorder were identified with only two tests—serum protein electrophoresis and the FLC assay. These two tests identified 100% of patients with MM or Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), 99.5% of those with SMM, 96% of patients with AL amyloidosis, and 89% of patients with MGUS. The clinician should screen for an M protein if there is only a low clinical suspicion of MM, WM, AL amyloidosis, or a related disorder. Berenson et al recommend screening for MGUS in all patients with age-inappropriate osteoporosis or osteopenia.
Prevalence of MGUS
Approximately 1.5% of persons older than 50 years and 3% of the population more than 70 years of age in Sweden, the United States, and western France have an M protein without evidence of MM or a related disorder.[6-8] In Olmsted County, Minnesota, a population-based study reported serum samples from 21,463 (77%) of the 28,038 enumerated residents who were 50 years of age or older. MGUS was found in 694 (3.2%) of this population (Table 1). The prevalence was 5.3% in persons 70 years of age or older and 8.9% in men older than 85 years. Age-adjusted rates were higher in men than in women (4.0% vs 2.7%) (Figure 1). The size of the M protein was < 1.5 g/dL in 80% of those with MGUS and ≥ 2 g/dL in only 4.5%. Reduced concentration of uninvolved immunoglobulins was present in 28% of the 447 patients tested.
The Olmsted County study involved a predominantly white population. However, the prevalence of MGUS is approximately twice as high in African-Americans as in whites. In one study in North Carolina, 8.6% of 916 African-American patients had an M protein compared with 3.6% of white patients. The prevalence of MGUS in African-Americans was 3.0-fold higher than in whites in a report of 4 million African-American and white male veterans admitted to Veterans Affairs hospitals. The age-adjusted prevalence of MGUS was 5.8% in 917 black men aged 50 to 74 years from Ghana. Interestingly, the prevalence did not increase with advancing age. In contrast, the prevalence of MGUS is lower in Japanese patients. In a study of 52,802 persons in Nagasaki City, Japan, 2.4% of patients 50 years of age or older and 4.4% of those ≥ 80 years of age had MGUS.
Prevalence of light-chain MGUS
Light-chain MGUS is defined as the presence of an abnormal free light chain ratio with no heavy chain expression plus an increased concentration of the involved light chain. In our southeastern Minnesota cohort in whom 18,353 persons were tested, 146 had light chain MGUS; the prevalence of light-chain MGUS was 0.8%.
Etiology and risk factors
The cause of MGUS is not known. There is a genetic element in some patients. In a study of 911 relatives of 97 MGUS probands and 232 MM probands, the prevalence of MGUS in first-degree relatives was 6.9% in those 50 to 59 years of age, 14.6% in those 70 to 79 years of age, and 21% in persons ≥ 80 years of age. The risk of MGUS in relatives of patients with MM was increased two-fold, while the risk in relatives of patients with MGUS was increased 3.3-fold. This suggests a shared environmental and/or genetic effect.
Radiation exposure may also be a factor. MGUS developed in 1,082 of 52,525 Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors. The prevalence of MGUS was 2.7% in persons within 1.5 km of the explosion (a 1.4-fold increase compared with those beyond 3.0 km). Persons younger than 20 years of age at the time of the bombing had increased prevalence of MGUS, but no difference was seen in older patients.
The risk of MM in agricultural workers has been higher in a number of case control studies. This increased risk has been attributed to insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, as well as other environmental agents. In a report of 555 men from a well-characterized prospective cohort of persons applying restricted-use pesticides, 6.8% of those > 50 years of age had MGUS compared with 3.7% in 9,469 men from Olmsted County, Minnesota. The age-adjusted prevalence of MGUS was 1.9-fold greater among the male pesticide workers.
In a report of 1,000 black women and 996 white women of similar age, 3.9% of the black women had MGUS, while 2.1% of the white women had MGUS. Multivariate analysis revealed that obesity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.8), black race (OR = 1.8) and increasing age (OR = 2.5) were independently associated with an excess risk of MGUS.
Clinical course and prognosis
MGUS is a common finding in medical practice. It is asymptomatic and is found unexpectedly during laboratory testing of an apparently normal person, or it may be found during the evaluation of an unrelated disorder. It is important to determine whether the M protein will remain stable or progress to MM or a related plasma cell proliferative disorder.
1. Kyle RA. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: natural history in 241 cases. Am J Med. 1978;64:814-26.
2. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol. 2003;121:749-57.
3. Katzmann JA, Dispenzieri A, Kyle RA, et al. Elimination of the need for urine studies in the screening algorithm for monoclonal gammopathies by using serum immunofixation and free light chain assays. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81:1575-8.
4. Katzmann JA, Kyle RA, Benson J, et al. Screening panels for detection of monoclonal gammopathies. Clin Chem. 2009;55:1517.
5. Berenson JR, Anderson KC, Audell RA, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: a consensus statement. Br J Haematol. 2010;150:28-38.
6. Axelsson U, Bachmann R, Hallen J. Frequency of pathological proteins (M-components) in 6,995 sera from an adult population. Acta Medica Scandinavica. 1966;179:235-47.
7. Kyle RA, Finkelstein S, Elveback LR, Kurland LT. Incidence of monoclonal proteins in a Minnesota community with a cluster of multiple myeloma. Blood. 1972;40:719-24.
8. Saleun JP, Vicariot M, Deroff P, Morin JF. Monoclonal gammopathies in the adult population of Finistere, France. J Clin Pathol. 1982;35:63-8.
9. Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV, et al. Prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1362-9.
10. Cohen HJ, Crawford J, Rao MK, et al. Racial differences in the prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy in a community-based sample of the elderly.[erratum appears in Am J Med 1998 Oct;105(4):362]. Am J Med. 1998;104:439-44.
11. Landgren O, Gridley G, Turesson I, et al. Risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and subsequent multiple myeloma among African American and white veterans in the United States. Blood. 2006;107:904-6.
12. Landgren O, Katzmann JA, Hsing AW, et al. Prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance among men in Ghana. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:1468-73.
13. Iwanaga M, Tagawa M, Tsukasaki K, et al. Prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: study of 52,802 persons in Nagasaki City, Japan. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:1474-9.
14. Dispenzieri A, Katzmann JA, Kyle R, et al. Prevalence and risk of progression of light-chain monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: a retrospective population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2010;375:1721-8.
15. Vachon CM, Kyle RA, Therneau TM, 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.
16. Iwanaga M, Tagawa M, Tsukasaki K, et al. Relationship between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and radiation exposure in Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors. Blood. 2009;113:1639-50.
17. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Epidemiology of the plasma-cell disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2007;20:637-64.
18. Landgren O, Kyle RA, Hoppin JA, et al. Pesticide exposure and risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in the Agricultural Health Study. Blood. 2009;113:6386-91.
19. Landgren O, Rajkumar SV, Pfeiffer RM, et al. Obesity is associated with an increased risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance among black and white women. Blood. 2010;116:1056-9.
20. Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV, et al. Long-term follow-up of 241 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: the original Mayo Clinic series 25 years later.[see comment]. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79:859-66.
21. Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV, et al. A long-term study of prognosis in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:564-9.
22. Axelsson U. A 20-year follow-up study of 64 subjects with M-components. Acta Medica Scandinavica. 1986;219:519-22.
23. Blade J, Lopez-Guillermo A, Rozman C, et al. Malignant transformation and life expectancy in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Br J Haematol. 1992;81:391-4.
24. Baldini L, Guffanti A, Cesana BM, et al. Role of different hematologic variables in defining the risk of malignant transformation in monoclonal gammopathy. Blood. 1996;87:912-8.
25. Gregersen H, Ibsen J, Mellemkjoer L, et al. Mortality and causes of death in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Br J Haematol. 2001;112:353-7
26. Gregersen H, Mellemkjaer L, Salling Ibsen J, et al. Cancer risk in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Am J Hematol. 2000;63:1-6.
27. Ogmundsdottir HM, Haraldsdottir V, Johannesson GM, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy in Iceland: a population-based registry and follow-up. Br J Haematol. 2002;118:166-73.
28. Kristinsson SY, Pfeiffer RM, Bjorkholm M, et al. Arterial and venous thrombosis in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and multiple myeloma: a population-based study. Blood. 2010;115:4991-8.
29. Cohen AL, Sarid R. The relationship between monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and venous thromboembolic disease. Thromb Res. 2010;125:216-9.
30. Kristinsson SY, Tang M, Pfeiffer RM, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and risk of skeletal fractures: a population-based study. Blood. 2010;116:2651-5
31. Bianchi G, Kyle RA, Colby CL, et al. Impact of optimal follow-up of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance on early diagnosis and prevention of myeloma-related complications. Blood. 2010;116:2019-25; quiz 197.
32. Kyle RA. "Benign" monoclonal gammopathy: after 20 to 35 years of follow-up. Mayo Clin Proc. 1993;68:26-36.
33. Rosinol L, Cibeira MT, Montoto S, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: predictors of malignant transformation and recognition of an evolving type characterized by a progressive increase in M protein size. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:428-34.
34. Cesana C, Klersy C, Barbarano L, et al. Prognostic factors for malignant transformation in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smoldering multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1625-34.
35. Rajkumar SV, Kyle RA, Therneau TM, et al. Serum free light chain ratio is an independent risk factor for progression in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Blood. 2005;106:812-7.
36. Perez-Persona E, Vidriales MB, Mateo G, et al. New criteria to identify risk of progression in monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance and smoldering multiple myeloma based on multiparameter flow cytometry analysis of bone marrow plasma cells. Blood. 2007;110:2586-92.
37. Varettoni M, Corso A, Cocito F, et al. Changing pattern of presentation in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: a single-center experience with 1400 patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2010;89:211-6.
38. Rossi F, Petrucci MT, Guffanti A, et al. Proposal and validation of prognostic scoring systems for IgG and IgA monoclonal gammopathies of undetermined significance. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:4439-45.
39. Kyle RA, Greipp PR. Smoldering multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:1347-9.
40. Kumar S, Rajkumar SV, Kyle RA, et al. Prognostic value of circulating plasma cells in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5668-74.
41. Nowakowski GS, Witzig TE, Dingli D, et al. Circulating plasma cells detected by flow cytometry as a predictor of survival in 302 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood. 2005;106:2276-9.
42. Anderson KC, Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV, et al. Clinically relevant end points and new drug approvals for myeloma. Leukemia. 2008;22:231-9.
43. Kyle RA, Remstein ED, Therneau TM, et al. Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2582-90.
44. Dispenzieri A, Kyle RA, Katzmann JA, et al. Immunoglobulin free light chain ratio is an independent risk factor for progression of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. Blood. 2008;111:785-9.
45. Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos LA, Maniatis A, Alexanian R. Solitary plasmacytoma of bone and asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Blood. 2000;96:2037-44.
46. Wang M, Alexanian R, Delasalle K, Weber D. Abnormal MRI of spine is the dominant risk factor for early progression of asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Blood. 2003;102:687a (abstract).
47. Mateos M-V, Lopez-Corral L, Hernandez M, et al. Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) at high-risk of progression to symptomatic disease: a phase III, randomized, multicenter trial based on lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Len-Dex) as induction therapy followed by maintenance therapy with Len alone vs no treatment. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts. 2010;116:1935.
48. Kyle RA, Linos A, Beard CM, et al. Incidence and natural history of primary systemic amyloidosis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1950 through 1989.Blood. 1992;79:1817-22.