Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30573775›Full record

ArticleLeukemia2019

Combination of flow cytometry and functional imaging for monitoring of residual disease in myeloma.

L Rasche, D Alapat, M Kumar, G Gershner, J McDonald, C P Wardell, R Samant, R Van Hemert, J Epstein, A F Williams and 12 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Leukemia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. EANM guidelines on the use of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

28 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

22 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

L RascheMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
D AlapatPathology Department, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
M KumarRadiology Department, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
G GershnerMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
J McDonaldRadiology Department, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
C P WardellMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
R SamantRadiology Department, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
R Van HemertRadiology Department, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
J EpsteinMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
A F WilliamsPathology Department, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
S ThanendrarajanMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
C SchinkeMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
M BauerMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2498-7295
C AshbyMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-0283
R G TytarenkoMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
F van RheeMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
B A WalkerMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8615-6254
M ZangariMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
B BarlogieMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
F E DaviesMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
G J MorganMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
N WeinholdMyeloma Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. nweinhold@uams.edu.
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · USUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEUniversity of Arkansas Medical Center · US

Funding

Tumor Cell-Microenvironment Interactions in the Molecular Pathogenesis of MultiplP01CA055819 · NCI · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI BELLAMY, WILLIAM T · 1993 to 2013
$49.7M
Understanding the Negative Prognostic Impact of Intraosseous Focal Lesions in Multiple MyelomaP20GM125503 · NIGMS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI Sanja Novak · 2018 to 2026
$23.0M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA055819NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM125503
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The iliac crest is the sampling site for minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring in multiple myeloma (MM). However, the disease distribution is often heterogeneous, and imaging can be used to complement MRD detection at a single site. We have investigated patients in complete remission (CR) during first-line or salvage therapy for whom MRD flow cytometry and the two imaging modalities positron emission tomography (PET) and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) were performed at the onset of CR. Residual focal lesions (FLs), detectable in 24% of first-line patients, were associated with short progression-free survival (PFS), with DW-MRI detecting disease in more patients. In some patients, FLs were only PET positive, indicating that the two approaches are complementary. Combining MRD and imaging improved prediction of outcome, with double-negative and double-positive features defining groups with excellent and dismal PFS, respectively. FLs were a rare event (12%) in first-line MRD-negative CR patients. In contrast, patients achieving an MRD-negative CR during salvage therapy frequently had FLs (50%). Multi-region sequencing and imaging in an MRD-negative patient showed persistence of spatially separated clones. In conclusion, we show that DW-MRI is a promising tool for monitoring residual disease that complements PET and should be combined with MRD.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingExome SequencingFlow CytometryFollow-Up StudiesHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansMultiple MyelomaNeoplasm, ResidualPositron-Emission TomographyPrognosisRemission InductionSurvival RateTransplantation, AutologousBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID30573775
PMCPMC6586541
OpenAlexW2905233176

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.