Feng, Yuan, Zhang, Zongpu, Qiu, Fufang, Yang, Zixiao, Xiong, Ji, Zhu, Wei, Wan, Fangzhu, Chen, Bobin, Wang, Jiguang, Zhang, Yi, Hua, Wei, Feng, Yuan, Zhang, Zongpu, Qiu, Fufang, Yang, Zixiao, Xiong, Ji, Zhu, Wei, Wan, Fangzhu, Chen, Bobin, Wang, Jiguang, Zhang, Yi, and Hua, Wei
Background: Intracranial plasmacytomas are rare tumors arising from plasma cells with approximately half of the cases progressing to multiple myeloma (MM). However, there is a lack of comprehensive clinical cohort analysis on the clinical and pathological features, progression, and outcomes of intracranial plasmacytomas. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 190 cases was conducted, combining data from 38 cases in a single institution and 152 cases from the literature. Patient demographics, clinical presentations, tumor locations, imaging features, surgical treatments, and follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed. Survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were performed to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 190 intracranial plasmacytoma patients with an average age of 55.4 years were included in the study. The preoperative misdiagnosis ratio was high at 55.3%, and 59.7% of the tumors affected the calvaria convexity, compared to 40.3% located at the skull base. Resection and biopsy were achieved in 72.4% and 27.6% patients, respectively. Among them, 34.2% (65/190) of patients were initially diagnosed with MM with intracranial plasmacytoma as their first presentation (MM-IPFP), while 63.2% (120/190) of patients were diagnosed with solitary intracranial plasmacytoma (SIP), including 61 extramedullary plasmacytomas and 59 solitary bone plasmacytomas. In the SIP group, 22.4% (24/107) of patients experienced disease progression leading to the development of MM during a median follow-up time of 42.6 months (range 1-230 months). Multivariate analysis unveiled that radiotherapy (HR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.00-0.87; p = 0.04), not surgery, was a protective prognostic factor for overall survival in MM-IPFP patients. Comparison between the SIP progression group and non-progression group revealed a significant difference of Ki-67 index (non-progression vs. SIP progression, 8.82% +/- 7.03 vs. 16.5% +/- 10.5, p < 0.05). AUC analysis determined that a cutoff value of