Immune Score Predicts Infection Risk in Multiple Myeloma

The Persistent Challenge of Infection in Multiple Myeloma

Infection remains a primary cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with multiple myeloma, often resulting from the combined immunosuppressive effects of the malignancy and its treatment [1, 2]. While modern therapies like CD38-targeting monoclonal antibodies and bispecific antibodies have significantly improved survival, they are associated with a heightened risk of severe pneumonia and upper respiratory tract infections [3, 4]. Current management strategies often rely on broad prophylactic measures, such as immunoglobulin supplementation or finite-duration antibiotics, yet the real-world benefit of these interventions remains inconsistent across different patient populations [5, 6]. Clinicians frequently struggle to identify which individuals will develop life-threatening complications versus those who will remain stable on therapy [2]. A recent study now offers fresh insights into specific immune biomarkers that may allow for more precise risk stratification in the clinical setting, potentially guiding targeted prophylaxis for the most vulnerable patients.

Large-Scale Immune Profiling via Flow Cytometry

To address the current limitations in understanding how immune dysfunction correlates with infection risk in multiple myeloma, researchers conducted a comprehensive analysis of the immune landscape. The study utilized next-generation flow cytometry (a high-sensitivity laboratory method that rapidly identifies and quantifies specific cell populations based on their surface proteins). By applying this technology to both bone marrow and peripheral blood samples, the authors characterized the immune microenvironment at a level of detail previously unavailable in routine clinical assessments. The investigation involved a substantial cohort of 1,786 patients, providing a robust dataset for identifying reliable biomarkers. To ensure the findings were applicable to real-world clinical practice, the researchers included individuals across various disease stages and treatment scenarios. This broad inclusion criterion allowed the team to account for the cumulative immunosuppressive effects of the underlying malignancy and the diverse therapeutic regimens currently used in myeloma care. For practicing oncologists, this large-scale approach means the resulting biomarkers are more likely to hold true across the heterogeneous patient populations seen in daily practice.

Identifying Specific Cellular Deficits

The researchers identified specific cellular signatures in the bone marrow that distinguished patients who developed infections from those who did not. Specifically, patients who experienced infections demonstrated significantly lower percentages of CD27+ B cells in the bone marrow. Because CD27 is a classic marker of memory B cells, which are essential for mounting rapid antibody responses to previously encountered pathogens, this deficit directly compromises adaptive immunity. Furthermore, the study found that these patients had significantly lower percentages of CD27- natural killer (NK) cells in the bone marrow. Since CD27- NK cells represent a more mature and highly cytolytic subset of the innate immune system, their depletion likely impairs the immediate, first-line defense against viral and bacterial threats. Beyond B and NK cell deficits, the analysis revealed a distinct imbalance within the T-cell compartment. Patients who developed infections exhibited an increased CD27-/CD27+ T-cell ratio in the bone marrow. This shift suggests a relative expansion of exhausted or chronically stimulated T cells at the expense of those expressing CD27 (a co-stimulatory molecule necessary for T-cell survival and memory formation). To ensure the reliability of these biomarkers, the researchers validated these immune risk factors in three independent datasets. This replication confirms that the identified alterations are consistent indicators of vulnerability, giving clinicians confidence that these markers reflect true biological risk rather than statistical noise.

Quantifying Risk with a Three-Factor Score

To translate these cellular findings into a practical clinical tool, the researchers developed an immune score designed to stratify patients based on the presence of the identified risk factors. This scoring system categorizes individuals according to whether they possess one or fewer risk factors versus two or more of the specific immune deficits (low CD27+ B cells, low CD27- NK cells, and an increased CD27-/CD27+ T-cell ratio). By aggregating these markers, the score provides a composite view of a patient's immunological vulnerability, moving beyond single-cell analysis to a comprehensive assessment of host defense. The clinical utility of this stratification was demonstrated by a stark divergence in patient outcomes. Patients with two or more risk factors experienced a 60% infection incidence, a rate significantly higher than the 35% infection incidence observed in patients with one or fewer risk factors (P <.001). This absolute difference of 25 percentage points underscores the cumulative impact of multiple immune defects on a patient's susceptibility to pathogens. For the practicing physician, this score identifies a high-risk subgroup that may require more intensive monitoring, earlier initiation of antibiotics, or aggressive prophylactic strategies during the course of their treatment. Multivariate analysis confirmed that the immune score was independently associated with infection incidence, yielding an odds ratio of 2.31 (P <.001). This statistical strength indicates that the score remains a robust predictor of infection even when accounting for other clinical variables. Because the score relies on flow cytometry data that can be obtained from routine laboratory samples, it offers a highly practical method for quantifying risk and personalizing infection prevention protocols in the oncology clinic.

Independent Risk Factors and Clinical Monitoring

While the three-factor immune score provided a robust predictive framework, the study identified several other variables that contributed to patient vulnerability. Multivariate analysis revealed that disease stage was independently associated with infection incidence, confirming that the underlying burden of malignancy remains a critical determinant of immune competence. Furthermore, the type of treatment administered played a significant role in risk stratification. Specifically, targeted therapy against CD38, B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), or G protein-coupled receptor class C group 5 member D (GPRC5D) were each independently associated with infection incidence. Because these proteins are primary targets for modern monoclonal antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, and bispecific T-cell engagers used in myeloma care, physicians must remain highly vigilant for infectious complications when prescribing these potent therapies. The clinical utility of these findings is greatly enhanced by a high degree of consistency across different tissue compartments. The study demonstrated that all cell types detectable in bone marrow were significantly correlated with those in peripheral blood, suggesting that the immunological deficits driving infection risk are systemic rather than localized to the marrow niche. For the practicing clinician, this correlation is highly relevant because it indicates that immune biomarkers of increased infection risk could be monitored using minimally invasive methods available in routine laboratories. By utilizing standard peripheral blood flow cytometry, physicians can identify high-risk patients who may benefit from intensified antimicrobial prophylaxis or closer clinical surveillance, entirely avoiding the need for frequent and painful bone marrow aspirations.

References

1. Siwakoti A, Khadka S, Grimshaw AA, Giri S. Association Between Immunoparesis and Treatment Outcomes of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2024.07.008

2. Vassilopoulos S, Vassilopoulos A, Kalligeros M, Shehadeh F, Mylonakis E. Cumulative Incidence and Relative Risk of Infection in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Treated With Anti-CD38 Monoclonal Antibody-Based Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2022. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofac574

3. Huang Z, Liu X, Li T, Luo C. Infection risks associated with daratumumab-containing regimens in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Frontiers in oncology. 2025. doi:10.3389/fonc.2025.1729177

4. Reynolds G, Cliff ERS, Mohyuddin GR, et al. Infections following bispecific antibodies in myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Blood advances. 2023. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2023010539

5. Miyashita A, Kondo S, Takaoka K, Nishimura Y, Rodgers T. Prophylactic Immunoglobulin Supplementation for Infection Prevention in Multiple Myeloma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2026.03.002

6. Mohyuddin GR, Aziz M, McClune B, Abdallah A, Qazilbash M. Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Systematic review and meta-analysis.. European journal of haematology. 2020. doi:10.1111/ejh.13374