Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25907102›Full record

GuidelineCytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry2016

Consensus guidelines for myeloma minimal residual disease sample staining and data acquisition.

Maryalice Stetler-Stevenson, Bruno Paiva, Lloyd Stoolman, Pei Lin, Jeffrey L Jorgensen, Alberto Orfao, Jacques Van Dongen, Andy C Rawstron

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Refining High-Risk Multiple Myeloma: Advancements in Genomic, Clinical, and Prognostic Criteria.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Maryalice Stetler-StevensonLaboratory of Pathology, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892.
Bruno PaivaClinica Universidad De Navarra, Centro De Investigaciones Medicas Aplicadas (CIMA), IDISNA, Pamplona, SpainAv. Pio XII 55, Pamplona, Spain.
Lloyd StoolmanDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109.
Pei LinDepartment of Hematopathology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, 77030.
Jeffrey L JorgensenDepartment of Hematopathology, U.T, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, 77030.
Alberto OrfaoCancer Research Center (IBMCC-CSIC/USAL) and Cytometry Service, Department of Medicine, University of Salamanca-IBSAL, Salamanca, Spain.
Jacques Van DongenDepartment of Immunology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Andy C RawstronHMDS, Department of Haematology, St, James's Institute of Oncology, Leeds, Ls9, 7TF, United Kingdom.

Funding

Flow Cytometric Analysis of Benign and Malignant TumorsZICSC009372 · NCI · DIVISION OF CLINICAL SCIENCES - NCI · PI WANG, HAO-WEI · 2009 to 2025
$29.6M
Flow Cytometric Evaluation of BiomarkersZ01BC011104 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI STETLER-STEVENSON, MARYALICE · 2008 to 2008
$368k
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 BC011104
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFlow cytometric (FC) detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) in multiple myeloma (MM) is prognostic and predictive of response to therapy. Therefore, standardization of FC MM MRD testing is vital to ensure better and uniform assessment of response to therapy and clinical prognostication. The International Clinical Cytometry Society and European Society for Clinical Cell Analysis, recognizing the need for standardized FC approaches, organized a working group to develop consensus guidelines on good clinical practice in FC MM MRD. Consensus guidelines are presented for specimen quality, staining process, reagent combinations, and the data acquisition process, all key factors in achieving high quality FC MM MRD testing.

methodsA group of eight flow cytometrists currently performing FC testing in MM evaluated available literature on FC MM MRD testing. A document presenting best practice was developed and reviewed in successive rounds until consensus was reached. RESULTS/

conclusionThe consensus on best practice for detection of MRD in MM is that CD38, CD138, and CD45 are analyzed in combination with CD19, CD56, CD27, CD81, and CD117. Consensus guidelines on acceptable specimen quality, staining procedures, panel design, and data acquisition were developed.

Indexed as

Antigens, CDAntineoplastic AgentsData AccuracyFlow CytometryHumansImmunophenotypingMultiple MyelomaNeoplasm, ResidualPlasma CellsPrognosisRemission InductionSpecimen HandlingStaining and LabelingAntigens, CDAntineoplastic Agentsflow cytometryminimal residual diseasemyeloma

Identifiers

PMID25907102
PMCPMC7511978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.