收藏切换
Anti-ENA antibody positivity as a novel immunological marker for suboptimal treatment response and poor prognosis in multiple myeloma: A real-world cohort study
收藏切换
Zhenzhen WU1, Tingyong CAO2, Youfan FENG3, Li ZHAO4, 5
Journal of Army Medical University | 2026, 48(3) : 325 - 336
Less
收藏切换
Journal of Army Medical University | 2026, 48(3): 325-336
• Clinical Medicine •
Anti-ENA antibody positivity as a novel immunological marker for suboptimal treatment response and poor prognosis in multiple myeloma: A real-world cohort study
Full
Zhenzhen WU1, Tingyong CAO2, Youfan FENG3, Li ZHAO4, 5
Affiliations
  • 1The First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu
  • 2Department of Hematology, the Second Hospital & Clinical Medical School, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu
  • 3Department of Hematology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou,Gansu
  • 4Gansu Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment of Hematological Diseases, the First Hospital, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu
  • 5The Laboratory Center, the First Hospital, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
Published: 2026-02-15 doi: 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202511108
Outline
收藏切换
Objective

To evaluate the clinical characteristics and their associations with treatment response and prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM) patients with positive autoantibody profiles (PA).

Methods

This single-center retrospective cohort study enrolled 189 MM patients who had undergone the autoantibody profile tests at the Gansu Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment of Hematological Diseases, the First Hospital, Lanzhou University, from April 2015 to April 2025. Follow-up data were collected until August 1, 2025. Based on the autoantibody profile results, patients were categorized into a negative autoantibody profiles group (NA) and a PA group for comparison of baseline characteristics and treatment responses between the two groups. The assessment of treatment response included the overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, partial response (PR) rate, non-response rate, and the utilization rates of key therapeutic strategies, such as anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT). Furthermore, the PA group patients were stratified into three subtypes based on antibody profiles: antinuclear antibody (ANA)-positive, anti-extractable nuclear antigen (ENA) antibody-positive, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-positive, to analyze prognostic differences. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to calculate median survival time, and Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate prognostic factors.

Results

A total of 189 patients with MM were included, with 57 (30.16%) in the PA group and 132 (69.84%) in the NA group. All patients received treatment; 58 (30.69%) received anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy, and 57 (30.16%) underwent auto-HSCT. After induction therapy, the ORR was 75.66% (143/189), comprising a PR in 43.39% (82/189) and a CR in 32.28% (61/189). The CR rate was significantly lower in the PA group than in the NA group (21.05% vs 37.12%, P=0.031). At a median follow-up of 39 months (IQR 16 to 59), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 37 months (IQR 16 to 58) for the entire cohort, while the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly shorter median PFS in the PA group versus the NA group (31 vs 43 months, P=0.048). Subgroup analysis based on specific autoantibodies revealed that patients with anti-ENA antibody positivity had significantly shorter median OS (41 vs 61 months, P=0.038) and PFS (28 vs 41 months, P=0.001) than those without. No significant differences in OS or PFS were observed between ANA/ANCA-positive and -negative groups. Cox regression identified anti-ENA antibody positivity (P=0.004) and male sex (P<0.001) as independent risk factors for OS, whereas achievement of CR post-induction (P=0.002) and anti-CD38 therapy (P=0.008) were protective factors. For PFS, independent risk factors were male sex (P<0.001) and anti-ENA positivity (P<0.001), with protective factors including elevated fibrinogen (P=0.011), achievement of CR (P=0.009), and anti-CD38 therapy (P=0.011).

Conclusion

MM patients with positive autoantibodies exhibit inferior responses to induction therapy and poor long-term outcomes. Anti-ENA antibody positivity is an independent risk factor for both OS and PFS in MM.

multiple myeloma  /  anti-ENA antibody  /  autoantibody profile  /  treatment response  /  prognosis
吴珍珍, 曹婷雍, 冯友繁, 赵丽. 抗ENA抗体阳性作为多发性骨髓瘤治疗反应差与预后不良的新型免疫学标志:一项真实世界队列研究. 陆军军医大学学报, 2026 , 48 (3) : 325 -336 . DOI: 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202511108
Zhenzhen WU, Tingyong CAO, Youfan FENG, Li ZHAO. Anti-ENA antibody positivity as a novel immunological marker for suboptimal treatment response and poor prognosis in multiple myeloma: A real-world cohort study[J]. Journal of Army Medical University, 2026 , 48 (3) : 325 -336 . DOI: 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202511108
Year 2026 volume 48 Issue 3
76
33
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202511108
  • Receive Date:2025-11-24
  • Online Date:2026-10-23
  • Published:2026-02-15
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received:2025-11-24
  • Revised:2026-01-13
Affiliations
    1The First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu
    2Department of Hematology, the Second Hospital & Clinical Medical School, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu
    3Department of Hematology, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou,Gansu
    4Gansu Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center for Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment of Hematological Diseases, the First Hospital, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu
    5The Laboratory Center, the First Hospital, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/ljjydxxb/EN/10.16016/j.2097-0927.202511108
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数
科
Family
属数
Number of
genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)
属
Genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT