Executive Summary
Key Points
- AL amyloidosis and multiple myeloma arise from clonal plasma cell proliferation with distinct clinical presentations despite shared pathogenic mechanisms
- 10-15% of multiple myeloma patients develop AL amyloidosis; conversely, approximately 10% of AL amyloidosis patients meet criteria for symptomatic myeloma at diagnosis
- Cardiac staging using NT-proBNP and troponin remains the primary prognostic determinant in AL amyloidosis, unlike myeloma where clonal characteristics drive staging
- Daratumumab plus bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (D-VCd) represents the new standard of care for newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis with significantly improved hematologic complete response rates
- Renal manifestations differ fundamentally: cast nephropathy predominates in myeloma while glomerular amyloid deposition causing nephrotic syndrome characterizes AL amyloidosis
- Treatment intensity must be carefully calibrated as AL amyloidosis patients tolerate less intensive regimens than myeloma patients despite use of similar drug classes
1. Introduction and Overview
AL amyloidosis and multiple myeloma represent two distinct yet intimately related plasma cell neoplasms that share fundamental pathogenic mechanisms while manifesting dramatically different clinical phenotypes. Both disorders arise from clonal proliferation of bone marrow plasma cells producing monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains, yet the clinical consequences and therapeutic approaches diverge significantly based on the biochemical behavior of the secreted light chains.
Multiple myeloma is a hematologic malignancy characterized by clonal plasma cell expansion exceeding 10% of bone marrow cellularity or presence of a biopsy-proven plasmacytoma, accompanied by at least one myeloma-defining event including the CRAB criteria (hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency, anemia, bone lesions) or specific biomarkers of malignancy. In contrast, AL amyloidosis is defined by the extracellular deposition of misfolded immunoglobulin light chain fibrils that assume a beta-pleated sheet conformation, forming insoluble aggregates that progressively accumulate in vital organs leading to functional impairment and organ failure.
The relationship between these disorders is bidirectional and clinically significant. Epidemiological studies demonstrate that 10-15% of patients with multiple myeloma will develop overt AL amyloidosis during their disease course, with up to 38% having clinically occult amyloid deposits detectable on careful evaluation. Conversely, approximately 10-18% of patients presenting with AL amyloidosis meet International Myeloma Working Group criteria for concurrent symptomatic multiple myeloma at the time of amyloidosis diagnosis.
Clinical Pearl
The key distinction lies in light chain behavior: in myeloma, light chains cause direct organ toxicity primarily through tubular cast formation, while in AL amyloidosis, light chains misfold into amyloid fibrils causing progressive organ infiltration and dysfunction.
2. Shared Pathophysiology and Molecular Mechanisms
Both AL amyloidosis and multiple myeloma originate from the clonal expansion of post-germinal center B cells that have undergone plasma cell differentiation. The pathogenic plasma cells in both disorders share several cytogenetic abnormalities, most notably the t(11;14) translocation involving the cyclin D1 gene. This translocation is present in 10-20% of multiple myeloma cases but occurs in 30-50% of AL amyloidosis patients, suggesting a potential mechanistic link between cyclin D1 overexpression and amyloidogenic light chain production.
Lambda light chains are substantially overrepresented in AL amyloidosis compared to multiple myeloma, occurring in approximately 75% of AL cases versus 35-40% of myeloma, further supporting the concept that specific light chain characteristics determine clinical phenotype.
The amyloidogenic light chains exert toxicity through two distinct mechanisms:
- Prefibrillar Toxicity: The soluble prefibrillar oligomeric intermediates demonstrate direct cytotoxicity, particularly to cardiomyocytes, through activation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathways leading to oxidative stress and cellular dysfunction.
- Fibrillar Deposition: The mature amyloid fibrils physically accumulate in tissues, disrupting normal architecture and organ function through mass effect and structural interference with cellular processes.
Comparative Features of Multiple Myeloma and AL Amyloidosis
| Feature | Multiple Myeloma | AL Amyloidosis |
|---|---|---|
| Plasma Cell Clone Size | Typically >10% bone marrow | Often <10% bone marrow |
| Light Chain Type | Kappa > Lambda | Lambda > Kappa (3:1 ratio) |
| t(11;14) Frequency | 10-20% | 30-50% |
| Primary Toxicity Mechanism | Direct tubular/cast nephropathy | Amyloid fibril deposition |
| Organ Involvement | Bone, kidney (tubules), marrow | Heart, kidney (glomeruli), liver, nerves |
| Proteinuria Pattern | Bence Jones (tubular) | Nephrotic (glomerular) |
3. Diagnostic Evaluation and Differentiation
3.1 Laboratory Evaluation
The initial diagnostic workup for both conditions relies heavily on characterization of the monoclonal protein. Serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) with immunofixation identifies the monoclonal immunoglobulin in most multiple myeloma cases but may be negative in up to 50% of AL amyloidosis patients due to the small clone size and predominance of free light chain-only secretion. The serum free light chain (FLC) assay has become essential, detecting abnormal FLC ratios in over 98% of patients with either disorder.
The difference between involved and uninvolved free light chains (dFLC) serves as both a diagnostic and prognostic marker. In AL amyloidosis, dFLC correlates with disease burden and organ involvement severity. The dFLC has been incorporated into the Mayo 2012 staging system for AL amyloidosis, using a threshold of 180 mg/L to define high-risk disease.
Cardiac biomarkers serve fundamentally different roles in these two diseases. In AL amyloidosis, NT-proBNP and cardiac troponin levels directly reflect cardiac infiltration severity and form the backbone of prognostic staging systems. In multiple myeloma, cardiac biomarker elevation is uncommon and typically reflects concurrent cardiac disease rather than myeloma-specific pathology.
3.2 Tissue Diagnosis
Definitive diagnosis of AL amyloidosis requires histological demonstration of amyloid deposits in tissue specimens using Congo red staining, which produces pathognomonic apple-green birefringence under polarized light microscopy. Fat pad aspiration combined with bone marrow biopsy achieves diagnostic sensitivity of approximately 90%.
Amyloid typing is essential to confirm AL versus other amyloid subtypes (ATTR, AA, others). Mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis of laser-microdissected amyloid deposits represents the gold standard for amyloid typing, with accuracy exceeding 98%.
Warning
Failure to properly type amyloid deposits can lead to catastrophic therapeutic errors, as the treatment approaches for AL, ATTR, and AA amyloidosis differ fundamentally. ATTR amyloidosis in particular requires differentiation from AL given the availability of effective targeted therapies.
3.3 The FLC Ratio as Primary Diagnostic Instrument: A Nephrologist's Framework
Two Different Questions, Two Different Tests
The free light chain assay and the monoclonal protein screen (SPEP/immunofixation/MASS-FIX) are frequently ordered together, but they are not interchangeable and they do not answer the same clinical question.
| Clinical Question | Primary Test | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Does this patient have AL amyloidosis? | Serum FLC ratio (+ immunofixation as complement) | AL is caused by a small, often invisible plasma cell clone producing an amyloidogenic free light chain. The M-protein may be <0.010 g/dL. The FLC ratio detects clonal light chain excess regardless of whether intact immunoglobulin is present. |
| Does this patient have MGUS, MGRS, or MM? | Monoclonal protein screen (SPEP +/- MASS-FIX + immunofixation + quantitative immunoglobulins) | These disorders are defined by the presence of an intact immunoglobulin clone. The FLC ratio is an essential add-on for risk stratification but is not the primary detection instrument. |
The conceptual distinction: in AL amyloidosis, the free light chain is the pathogen -- the amyloidogenic light chain directly deposits in tissue and directly kills cardiomyocytes through oxidative stress pathways before fibrils even form. In MGUS/MM, the free light chain ratio is a surrogate marker of clonality.
Why Absolute FLC Levels Fail Nephrologists -- and Why the Ratio Does Not
The problem with absolute levels: Both kappa and lambda free light chains are small proteins cleared by the kidney. As GFR falls, both accumulate in serum regardless of clonal disease. By CKD Stage 3b (eGFR 30-44), median kappa is ~30 mg/L and median lambda is ~25 mg/L. The laboratory will flag both as high in essentially every CKD patient.
Why the ratio survives CKD: The critical biological fact is that renal failure increases both kappa and lambda proportionally -- it does not preferentially elevate one over the other in a way that mimics clonal excess. The iStopMM study quantified this precisely: using standard reference intervals (0.26-1.65), 9% of CKD patients appeared to have an abnormal ratio. Using eGFR-adjusted intervals, that fell to 0.7% -- a 13-fold reduction in false positives.
iStopMM eGFR-Adjusted FLC Ratio Reference Intervals
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) | Standard Interval (0.26-1.65) | iStopMM Renal-Adjusted Interval |
|---|---|---|
| ≥60 | 0.26-1.65 | 0.26-1.65 |
| 45-59 | (9% false-positive rate) | 0.46-2.62 |
| 30-44 | (higher false-positive rate) | 0.48-3.38 |
| <30 | (significant over-diagnosis) | 0.54-3.30 |
How the Ratio Behaves Across the Plasma Cell Disease Spectrum
MGUS: An abnormal FLC ratio is one of the three Mayo 2005 MGUS risk factors. A patient with MGUS and a normal FLC ratio has a 20-year progression risk of only 5%. An abnormal ratio triples that risk.
LC-MGUS (Light Chain MGUS): Defined by an abnormal FLC ratio + elevated involved chain + urinary monoclonal protein <500 mg/24h without intact immunoglobulin M-protein. This is the specific MGUS subtype that precedes light chain MM and AL amyloidosis. The iStopMM study found the crude prevalence of LC-MGUS in CKD patients was 0.5%.
MGRS: The FLC ratio in MGRS is almost always abnormal, and the degree of abnormality does not correlate with the severity of renal injury. The ratio in MGRS is most useful as: (1) a clonality signal when immunofixation is equivocal; (2) the monitoring metric for clone activity.
AL Amyloidosis: The FLC ratio is the primary diagnostic and staging instrument. In 81.9% of untreated AL amyloidosis patients, the FLC ratio is abnormal -- by contrast, SPEP detects an M-spike in only ~50%. The combination of serum immunofixation + urine immunofixation + FLC achieves >98% detection sensitivity.
Clinical Pearl -- The Two-Question Rule for Plasma Cell Disease in Nephrology
- Is the kappa/lambda ratio abnormal for this patient's GFR? -- Use iStopMM renal-adjusted intervals. If no: FLC elevation is physiologic. If yes: go to question 2.
- What is the direction and magnitude, and does it match the organ dysfunction?
- Very low ratio (lambda excess, typically <0.2) + cardiac/renal/neurologic dysfunction --> AL lambda amyloidosis evaluation immediately
- Very high ratio (kappa excess, often >5-10, especially >100) --> kappa clonal disease: kappa AL, kappa MM, kappa MGRS
- Mildly abnormal ratio within 2x the renal-adjusted boundary + no organ dysfunction --> LC-MGUS; risk-stratify and monitor
The dFLC in CKD: Use With Caution as a Staging Tool
The dFLC (difference between involved and uninvolved free light chains) is the key metric in AL amyloidosis Mayo 2012 staging (threshold ≥180 mg/L). In CKD, both kappa and lambda accumulate from renal retention, so the uninvolved chain is not truly at its physiologic baseline, which artificially inflates the dFLC.
The hierarchy in CKD: Use the ratio (renal-adjusted) as the diagnostic anchor. Use the dFLC as a supplementary staging metric with awareness that it is modestly inflated. Use serial dFLC for treatment monitoring, comparing to the patient's own baseline rather than to the absolute threshold.
4. Diagnostic Delays: A Critical Problem in AL Amyloidosis
4.1 The Burden of Delayed Diagnosis
AL amyloidosis is characterized by substantial diagnostic delays that directly impact patient outcomes. The median time from symptom onset to diagnosis ranges from 6 to 12 months across multiple studies, with many patients experiencing delays exceeding 2 years. Studies consistently show that patients visit an average of 3-4 different physicians before receiving a correct diagnosis.
| Factor Contributing to Delay | Impact |
|---|---|
| Nonspecific early symptoms | Fatigue, weight loss, edema attributed to common conditions |
| Low disease awareness | Many physicians encounter <1 case in their career |
| Symptom misattribution | Cardiac symptoms attributed to "heart failure"; renal symptoms to "nephrotic syndrome" |
| Multiple specialist visits | Average 3-4 physicians seen before diagnosis |
| Patient delay | Self-interpretation of symptoms as "aging" or minor issues |
4.2 Cardiac Amyloidosis Misdiagnosed as Heart Failure
The most consequential diagnostic error is the misattribution of cardiac amyloidosis symptoms to "heart failure with preserved ejection fraction" (HFpEF) or hypertensive heart disease.
| Feature | HFpEF/Hypertensive HD | Cardiac Amyloidosis |
|---|---|---|
| LV wall thickness | Modest (12-14 mm) | Marked (>14 mm, often >16 mm) |
| ECG voltage | Normal or increased | Low voltage (paradox with thick walls) |
| Apical sparing on strain | Absent | Present ("cherry on top" pattern) |
| Response to standard HF therapy | Typically improves | Often worsens or no response |
| Hypotension with ACEi/ARB | Uncommon | Common (autonomic involvement) |
| Associated features | Hypertension history | Periorbital purpura, macroglossia, carpal tunnel |
Warning
Any patient with "HFpEF" and unexplained left ventricular hypertrophy, especially with low-voltage ECG, should be evaluated for cardiac amyloidosis. A simple screening with serum free light chains and cardiac biomarkers can identify AL amyloidosis. Tc-99m pyrophosphate scintigraphy can identify ATTR amyloidosis non-invasively.
4.3 Renal Amyloidosis Misdiagnosed as Primary Nephrotic Syndrome
Renal AL amyloidosis frequently presents with nephrotic-range proteinuria and is commonly misattributed to primary glomerular diseases (minimal change disease, membranous nephropathy, FSGS, diabetic nephropathy).
| Red Flag Finding | Suggests AL Amyloidosis |
|---|---|
| Age >50 with new nephrotic syndrome | Higher pretest probability |
| Nephrotic syndrome + unexplained cardiac symptoms | Multi-organ involvement |
| Nephrotic syndrome + carpal tunnel syndrome | Systemic amyloid deposition |
| Nephrotic syndrome + autonomic symptoms | Peripheral/autonomic neuropathy |
| Unexplained hepatomegaly or elevated alk phos | Hepatic involvement |
| Periorbital purpura, macroglossia | Pathognomonic for AL |
| Monoclonal protein on SPEP/UPEP/FLC | Clonal plasma cell disorder |
4.4 Impact of Diagnostic Delay on Outcomes
| Time from Symptoms to Diagnosis | Cardiac Stage at Diagnosis | Median OS |
|---|---|---|
| <6 months | Stage I-II predominant | 48+ months |
| 6-12 months | Stage II-III | 24-36 months |
| >12 months | Stage III-IIIb predominant | 12-18 months |
Clinical Pearl
The three pillars of improving AL amyloidosis outcomes are: (1) Early recognition before advanced organ damage, (2) Effective anti-plasma cell therapy, and (3) Comprehensive supportive care. Diagnostic delay undermines the first pillar and limits the effectiveness of the other two.
4.5 Strategies to Reduce Diagnostic Delay
For Cardiologists
- Consider amyloidosis in any HFpEF patient with LVH and low-voltage ECG
- Screen with serum free light chains in unexplained LVH
- Use Tc-99m PYP scintigraphy to evaluate for ATTR; if negative with abnormal FLC, suspect AL
- Recognize that standard HF therapy failure may indicate infiltrative cardiomyopathy
For Nephrologists
- Screen all nephrotic syndrome patients >50 years with SPEP, UPEP, and FLC
- Maintain high suspicion when nephrotic syndrome occurs with cardiac or neurologic symptoms
- Consider fat pad aspiration before kidney biopsy if amyloidosis is suspected
- Remember AL amyloidosis can mimic any primary glomerular disease histologically
5. Cardiac Involvement and Prognostic Staging
Cardiac involvement represents the primary determinant of survival in AL amyloidosis, present in approximately 70-90% of patients at diagnosis and responsible for the majority of mortality.
| Staging System | Biomarkers Used | Thresholds | Stages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mayo 2004 | NT-proBNP, TnT | NT-proBNP 332 pg/mL, TnT 0.035 mcg/L | I, II, III |
| European Modified | NT-proBNP, TnT | Add NT-proBNP 8,500 pg/mL cutoff | I, II, IIIa, IIIb |
| Mayo 2012 | NT-proBNP, TnT, dFLC | NT-proBNP 1,800 pg/mL, TnT 0.025 ng/mL, dFLC 180 mg/L | I, II, III, IV |
| BU Staging | BNP, TnI | BNP 81 pg/mL, TnI 0.1 ng/mL, BNP 700 pg/mL | I, II, IIIa, IIIb |
Clinical Pearl
The Mayo staging systems for AL amyloidosis are fundamentally different from the International Staging System (ISS) for multiple myeloma. In myeloma, staging reflects tumor burden (beta-2-microglobulin, albumin, LDH, cytogenetics), while AL amyloidosis staging reflects end-organ damage severity.
6. Renal Manifestations: Distinct Pathology, Different Presentations
Cast Nephropathy (Myeloma Kidney)
Cast nephropathy represents the most common renal manifestation of multiple myeloma, present in 40-60% of patients with myeloma-related renal disease. The pathogenesis involves excessive filtration of monoclonal free light chains that reach the distal nephron and bind with Tamm-Horsfall protein, forming obstructing intratubular casts.
AL Amyloidosis: Glomerular Disease
In contrast, AL amyloidosis predominantly affects the glomeruli and renal vasculature. Amyloid fibrils deposit within the mesangium and along glomerular and tubular basement membranes, causing progressive obliteration of the capillary lumen and podocyte injury.
| Feature | Cast Nephropathy (Myeloma) | Renal AL Amyloidosis |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Site | Distal tubules, interstitium | Glomeruli, vessels |
| Presentation | Acute kidney injury | Nephrotic syndrome |
| Proteinuria Type | Bence Jones (free light chains) | Albumin-predominant |
| Urine Dipstick | Trace or negative | 3-4+ positive |
| Serum Albumin | Usually normal | Low (severe hypoalbuminemia) |
| Reversibility | Possible with rapid FLC reduction | Slow with sustained hematologic CR |
| FLC Threshold | >500-1500 mg/L typical | May be low (<500 mg/L) |
Warning
Approximately 50% of myeloma patients may have occult amyloid deposits on autopsy, and both pathologies can coexist. Kidney biopsy remains the gold standard for differentiating cast nephropathy from AL amyloidosis and identifying overlap syndromes.
7. Survival Analysis: Comparative Outcomes
AL Amyloidosis Survival by Cardiac Stage (D-VCd Era)
| Cardiac Stage | Median OS (Treated) | 5-Year OS | Benefit vs. Untreated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage I | Not reached | 85% | +60% absolute |
| Stage II | 80+ months | 70% | +55% absolute |
| Stage III | 36-48 months | 50% | +40% absolute |
| Stage IIIb | 18-24 months | 30% | +25% absolute |
Comparative Summary: Treatment Benefit
| Parameter | AL Amyloidosis | Multiple Myeloma |
|---|---|---|
| UNTREATED | ||
| Median OS | 6-12 months | 6-12 months |
| 5-Year OS | <10% | <10% |
| TREATED (Modern Era) | ||
| Median OS | 5-6 years | 8-10 years |
| 5-Year OS | 55-65% | 65-70% |
| 10-Year OS | 35-40% | 45-50% |
Clinical Pearl
The survival curves for AL amyloidosis and multiple myeloma have fundamentally different shapes. Myeloma shows a relatively linear decline over years, while AL amyloidosis demonstrates high early mortality (25-30% at 6 months) followed by a plateau for responders. Long-term AL survivors often outlive myeloma patients if deep response is achieved.
8. Mortality Outcomes: Treated vs. Untreated Disease
ANDROMEDA Trial Survival Data (D-VCd vs VCd)
| Outcome | D-VCd Arm | VCd Arm | Hazard Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hematologic CR rate | 59.5% | 19.2% | OR 6.03 |
| 5-Year Overall Survival | 76.1% | 64.7% | HR 0.62 |
| 5-Year MOD-PFS | 72% | 48% | HR 0.44 |
| Cardiac CR rate | 40.7% | 13.7% | -- |
| Renal CR rate | 57% | 27% | -- |
Warning
Both AL amyloidosis and multiple myeloma are fatal without treatment. The dramatic survival improvements with modern therapy (AL: median 6-12 months to 5-6 years; MM: median 6-12 months to 8-10 years) represent among the greatest therapeutic advances in hematologic malignancy. Early diagnosis and prompt treatment initiation are essential for both diseases.
9. Treatment Approaches: Drug Mechanisms and Rationale
Why D-VCd is Standard for AL Amyloidosis
| Drug | Contribution to Regimen |
|---|---|
| Daratumumab | Highest CR rates; active regardless of clone size; rapid response |
| Bortezomib | Exploits proteotoxic vulnerability of amyloidogenic cells; proven efficacy |
| Cyclophosphamide | Synergistic cytotoxicity; oral convenience; well-tolerated |
| Dexamethasone | Rapid cytoreduction; enhances partner drug activity |
Clinical Pearl
The most dangerous error in AL amyloidosis treatment is applying myeloma-intensity regimens to patients with significant organ dysfunction. A patient with AL amyloidosis and 15% bone marrow plasma cells should NOT receive myeloma-dose therapy -- organ function, not clone size, determines tolerable treatment intensity.
10. Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation
| Parameter | Multiple Myeloma ASCT | AL Amyloidosis ASCT |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility Rate | 80-85% of patients <70 years | 15-25% of patients |
| Age Cutoff | Generally <70-75 years | Generally <65-70 years |
| Cardiac Restriction | Minimal (LVEF >40%) | Strict (cardiac stage I-II, NT-proBNP <5,000) |
| Melphalan Dose | 200 mg/m2 standard | 140-200 mg/m2 (based on cardiac status) |
| TRM Rate | 1-3% | 2-5% (experienced centers) |
| CR Rate Post-ASCT | 30-40% | 40-50% |
11. Response Assessment and Monitoring
Hematologic Response in AL Amyloidosis
| Response | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Complete Response (CR) | Negative serum and urine immunofixation + normal FLC ratio |
| VGPR | dFLC <40 mg/L |
| Partial Response (PR) | >50% reduction in dFLC |
| No Response | Does not meet PR criteria |
Organ Response Criteria
Cardiac: >30% AND >300 pg/mL decrease in NT-proBNP (if baseline >650), OR ≥2 NYHA class improvement
Renal: ≥30% reduction in proteinuria or drop to <0.5 g/24h WITHOUT ≥25% eGFR decline
Hepatic: ≥50% decrease in abnormal alkaline phosphatase, OR decrease in liver size
12. Managing Concurrent AL Amyloidosis and Multiple Myeloma
Approximately 10-18% of patients present with concurrent AL amyloidosis and symptomatic multiple myeloma.
- Stage using BOTH AL cardiac staging and myeloma ISS
- Calibrate treatment intensity to organ function, NOT myeloma risk category
- Monitor BOTH myeloma parameters (M-protein, MRD) AND AL parameters (dFLC, organ biomarkers)
- Cardiac stage remains dominant prognostic factor even with concurrent myeloma
Warning
AL amyloidosis patients with >10% bone marrow plasma cells are at highest risk of receiving inappropriately intensive myeloma-based regimens. Cardiac function, not marrow involvement, should drive treatment intensity decisions.
13. Future Directions and Emerging Therapies
Fibril-Targeting Approaches
- Birtamimab: Monoclonal antibody targeting amyloid deposits directly
- Doxycycline: Disrupts amyloid fibril stability
- CAEL-101: Anti-amyloid antibody in clinical trials
Cellular Therapies
- BCMA-targeted CAR-T: Under investigation in AL amyloidosis
- Bispecific T-cell engagers: Teclistamab, other BCMA x CD3 BiTEs
- Cardiac toxicity (CRS) requires careful management
Novel Agents
- Venetoclax: BCL-2 inhibitor; particularly active in t(11;14) disease (common in AL)
- Belantamab mafodotin: BCMA-targeted antibody-drug conjugate
- Selinexor: XPO1 inhibitor
Clinical Pearl
The three pillars for improving AL amyloidosis outcomes remain: (1) early disease recognition before advanced organ damage, (2) effective anti-plasma cell therapy achieving rapid deep hematologic response, and (3) comprehensive supportive care including cardiology, nephrology, and neurology collaboration.
References
- Merlini G, Dispenzieri A, Sanchorawala V, et al. Systemic immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4(1):38. PubMed
- Muchtar E, Gertz MA, Kumar SK, et al. Improved outcomes for newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis between 2000 and 2014. Blood. 2017;129(15):2111-2119. PubMed
- Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):e538-e548. PubMed
- Wisniowski B, Wechalekar A. Confirming the diagnosis of amyloidosis. Acta Haematol. 2020;143(4):312-321. PubMed
- Wechalekar AD, Gillmore JD, Bird J, et al. Guidelines on the management of AL amyloidosis. Br J Haematol. 2015;168(2):186-206. PubMed
- Kourelis TV, Kumar SK, Gertz MA, et al. Coexistent multiple myeloma or increased bone marrow plasma cells define equally high-risk populations in patients with immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(34):4319-4324. PubMed
- Kastritis E, Palladini G, Minnema MC, et al. Daratumumab-based treatment for immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(1):46-58. PubMed
- Leung N, Bridoux F, Batuman V, et al. The evaluation of monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance: a consensus report. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2019;15(1):45-59. PubMed
- Nasr SH, Valeri AM, Sethi S, et al. Clinicopathologic correlations in multiple myeloma: a case series of 190 patients with kidney biopsies. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;59(6):786-794. PubMed
- Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, Muchtar E. Treatment of AL amyloidosis: mSMART Consensus Statement 2020 Update. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96(6):1546-1577. PubMed
- Dasari S, Theis JD, Vrana JA, et al. Amyloid typing by mass spectrometry in clinical practice. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(9):1852-1864. PubMed
- Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, et al. Revised prognostic staging system for light chain amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(9):989-995. PubMed
- Gillmore JD, Maurer MS, Falk RH, et al. Nonbiopsy diagnosis of cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis. Circulation. 2016;133(24):2404-2412. PubMed
- Dispenzieri A, Gertz MA, Kyle RA, et al. Serum cardiac troponins and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide: a staging system for primary systemic amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(18):3751-3757. PubMed
- Leung N, Rajkumar SV. Acute kidney injury in multiple myeloma and light chain cast nephropathy. Blood Cancer J. 2023;13(1):44. PubMed
- Palladini G, Hegenbart U, Milani P, et al. A staging system for renal outcome and early markers of renal response to chemotherapy in AL amyloidosis. Blood. 2014;124(15):2325-2332. PubMed
- Sanchorawala V. Differences and similarities in treatment paradigms and goals between AL amyloidosis and multiple myeloma. Hemato. 2021;2(4):611-621. PubMed Search
- Palladini G, Kastritis E, Maurer MS, et al. Daratumumab plus CyBorD for patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis: safety run-in results of ANDROMEDA. Blood. 2020;136(1):71-80. PubMed
- Kastritis E, Sanchorawala V, Merlini G, et al. Final overall survival results from the ANDROMEDA study. Blood. 2024;144(Suppl 1). ASH 2024. PubMed Search
- Sonneveld P, Avet-Loiseau H, Lonial S, et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the IMWG. Blood. 2016;127(24):2955-2962. PubMed
- D'Souza A, Dispenzieri A, Wirk B, et al. Improved outcomes after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for light chain amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(32):3741-3749. PubMed
- Palladini G, Dispenzieri A, Gertz MA, et al. New criteria for response to treatment in immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(36):4541-4549. PubMed
- Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. IMWG consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):e328-e346. PubMed
- Bochtler T, Hegenbart U, Heiss C, et al. Hyperdiploidy is less frequent in AL amyloidosis compared with MGUS. Blood. 2011;117(14):3809-3815. PubMed
- Edwards CV, Bhutani D, Gerstman E, et al. Addressing the challenges of diagnosis and treatment in AL amyloidosis. JCO Oncol Pract. 2023;19(5):265-274. PubMed Search
- Bianchi G, Zhang Y, Comenzo RL. AL amyloidosis: current chemotherapy and immune therapy treatment strategies. JACC CardioOncol. 2021;3(4):467-487. PubMed
- Lousada I, Comenzo RL, Landau H, et al. Light chain amyloidosis: patient experience survey from the Amyloidosis Research Consortium. Adv Ther. 2015;32(10):920-928. PubMed
- McCausland KL, White MK, Guthrie SD, et al. Light chain (AL) amyloidosis: the journey to diagnosis. Patient. 2018;11(2):207-216. PubMed
Related Content
© Urine Nephrology Now | Clinical Mastery Series
Andrew Bland, MD, MBA, MS