Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27729323›Full record

Trial reportBlood2016

Serum free light chains, not urine specimens, should be used to evaluate response in light-chain multiple myeloma.

Thomas Dejoie, Jill Corre, Helene Caillon, Cyrille Hulin, Aurore Perrot, Denis Caillot, Eileen Boyle, Marie-Lorraine Chretien, Jean Fontan, Karim Belhadj and 33 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Blood, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Multiple myeloma.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

43 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas DejoieBiochemistry Laboratory and Hematology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Nantes, France.
Jill CorreInstitut Universitaire du Cancer, CHU, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Toulouse, INSERM 1037, Toulouse, France.
Helene CaillonBiochemistry Laboratory and Hematology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Nantes, France.
Cyrille HulinHematology Department, CHU, Bordeaux, France.
Aurore PerrotHematology Department, CHU, Nancy, France.
Denis CaillotHematology Department, CHU, Dijon, France.
Eileen BoyleHematology Department, CHU, Lille, France.
Marie-Lorraine ChretienHematology Department, CHU, Dijon, France.
Jean FontanHematology Department, CHU, Besancon, France.
Karim BelhadjHematology Department, CHU, Creteil, France.
Sabine BrechignacHematology Department, CHU, Bobigny, France.
Olivier DecauxInternal Medicine, CHU, Rennes, France.
Laurent VoillatCentre Hospitalier William Morey, Departmental Hospital, Chalon, France.
Philippe RodonClinical Research Unit, Centre Hospitalier de Périgueux, Departmental Hospital, Perigueux, France.
Olivier FitoussiHematology Department, Polyclinique Bordeaux-Nord, Bordeaux, France.
Carla AraujoCentre Hospitalier Departemental, Bayonne, France.
Lotfi BenboubkerHôpital Bretonneau, CHU, Tours, France.
Charlotte FontanInstitut Universitaire du Cancer, CHU, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Toulouse, INSERM 1037, Toulouse, France.
Mourad TiabCentre Hospitalier Departemental, La Roche sur Yon, La Roche/Yon, France.
Pascal GodmerCentre Hospitalier Departemental, Vannes, France.
Odile LuycxCentre Hospitalier Departemental, Lorient, France.
Olivier AllangbaCentre Hospitalier Departemental, Saint-Brieuc, France.
Jean-Michel PignonCentre Hospitalier Departemental, Dunkerque, France.
Jean-Gabriel FuzibetInternal Medicine, CHU, Nice, France.
Laurence LegrosInternal Medicine, CHU, Nice, France.
Anne Marie StoppaHematology Department, Institut Paoli Calmette, Marseille, France.
Mamoun DibHematology Department, CHU, Angers, France.
Brigitte PegourieHematology Department, CHU, Grenoble, France.
Frederique Orsini-PiocelleHematology Department, Centre Hospitalier Departemental, Annecy, France.
Lionel KarlinHematology Department, CHU, Lyon, France.
Bertrand ArnulfImmunopathology Service, Saint-Louis University Hospital, Paris, France.
Murielle RousselInstitut Universitaire du Cancer, CHU, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Toulouse, INSERM 1037, Toulouse, France.
Laurent GarderetHematology Department, Saint-Antoine University Hospital, Paris, France.
Mohamad MohtyHematology Department, Saint-Antoine University Hospital, Paris, France.
Nathalie MeulemanDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Hematology, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium.
Chantal DoyenDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Research, Clinique Universitaire Mont-Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium.
Pascal LenainHematology Department, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France.
Margaret MacroHematology Department, CHU, Caen, France; and.
Xavier LeleuHematology Department, CHU, Poitiers, France.
Thierry FaconHematology Department, CHU, Lille, France.
Philippe MoreauBiochemistry Laboratory and Hematology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU), Nantes, France.
Michel AttalInstitut Universitaire du Cancer, CHU, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Toulouse, INSERM 1037, Toulouse, France.
Herve Avet-LoiseauInstitut Universitaire du Cancer, CHU, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Toulouse, INSERM 1037, Toulouse, France.
Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Toulouse · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Dijon Bourgogne · FRInserm · FRLaboratoire de Biochimie · FRLille’s Cardiology Hospital · FRSorbonne Université · FRBretonneau Hospital · FRCentre Henri BecquerelCentre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois · FRCentre hospitalier Bretagne Atlantique · FRCentre Hospitalier de Bretagne Sud · FRCentre Hospitalier de la Côte Basque · FRCentre Hospitalier de Saint-Brieuc · FRCentre Hospitalier de Vitré · FRCentre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nancy · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besançon · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen · FR

Funding

Trageting the Multiple Myeloma EpigenomeP50CA100707 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI ANDERSON, KENNETH C., MUNSHI, NIKHIL C. · 2003 to 2023
$45.0M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA100707
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guidelines for monitoring multiple myeloma (MM) patients expressing light chains only (light-chain MM [LCMM]) rely on measurements of monoclonal protein in urine. Alternatively, serum free light chain (sFLC) measurements have better sensitivity over urine methods, however, demonstration that improved sensitivity provides any clinical benefit is lacking. Here, we compared performance of serum and urine measurements in 113 (72κ, 41λ) newly diagnosed LCMM patients enrolled in the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) 2009 trial. All diagnostic samples (100%) had an abnormal κ:λ sFLC ratio, and involved (monoclonal) FLC (iFLC) expressed at levels deemed measurable for monitoring (≥100 mg/L). By contrast, only 64% patients had measurable levels of monoclonal protein (≥200 mg per 24 hours) in urine protein electrophoresis (UPEP). After 1 and 3 treatment cycles, iFLC remained elevated in 71% and 46% of patients, respectively, whereas UPEP reported a positive result in 37% and 18%; all of the patients with positive UPEP at cycle 3 also had elevated iFLC levels. Importantly, elevated iFLC or an abnormal κ:λ sFLC ratio after 3 treatment cycles associated with poorer progression-free survival (P = .006 and P < .0001, respectively), whereas positive UPEP or urine immunofixation electrophoresis (uIFE) did not. In addition, patients with an abnormal κ:λ sFLC ratio had poorer overall survival (P = .022). Finally, early normalization of κ:λ sFLC ratio but not negative uIFE predicted achieving negative minimal residual disease, as determined by flow cytometry, after consolidation therapy (100% positive predictive value). We conclude that improved sensitivity and prognostic value of serum over urine measurements provide a strong basis for recommending the former for monitoring LCMM patients.

Indexed as

AdultConsolidation ChemotherapyHumansImmunoglobulin Light ChainsInduction ChemotherapyMiddle AgedMultiple MyelomaPredictive Value of TestsProportional Hazards ModelsReference StandardsSurvival AnalysisImmunoglobulin Light Chains

Identifiers

PMID27729323
PMCPMC5179336
OpenAlexW2531573595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.