ArticleJCO oncology practice2020
Variability in Cytogenetic Testing for Multiple Myeloma: A Comprehensive Analysis From Across the United States.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alterations in chromosome 1q in multiple myeloma randomized clinical trials: a systematic review.Blood cancer journal · 2024Pooled it
- The past, present, and future of myeloma staging and risk prognostication.The oncologist · 2025Review
- Guidelines for the testing and reporting of cytogenetic results for risk stratification of multiple myeloma: a report of the Cancer Genomics Consortium Plasma Cell Neoplasm Working Group.Blood cancer journal · 2025Review
- Population differences in the associations between chromosomal abnormalities and overall survival of multiple myeloma.Blood neoplasia · 2025Article
- Distinct pathway activities are associated with prognosis and response to bortezomib-containing treatment in MCL1-M based molecular subtypes of multiple myeloma.Annals of hematology · 2024Article
- Discontinuation of maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma guided by multimodal measurable residual disease negativity (MRD2STOP).Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
- [Application of the Second Revision of the International Staging System (R2-ISS) in the prognostic assessment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2024Article
- Variability of definition of high-risk multiple myeloma across phase III clinical trials.EJHaem · 2023Article
- Myeloma Genome Project Panel is a Comprehensive Targeted Genomics Panel for Molecular Profiling of Patients with Multiple Myeloma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022Article
- Reliability of Cell-Free DNA and Targeted NGS in Predicting Chromosomal Abnormalities of Patients With Myeloid Neoplasms.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Prospective Evaluation of Whole-Body MRI versus FDG PET/CT for Lesion Detection in Participants with Myeloma.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2021Observational
- Chromosome 1q21 abnormalities in multiple myeloma.Blood cancer journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMultiple myeloma (MM) treatment has changed tremendously, with significant improvement in patient out-comes. One group with a suboptimal benefit is patients with high-risk cytogenetics, as tested by conventional karyotyping or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Methodology for these tests has been published, but not necessarily standardized.
methodsWe address variability in the testing and reporting methodology for MM cytogenetics in the United States using the ongoing African American Multiple Myeloma Study (AAMMS). We evaluated clinical and cytogenetic data from 1,221 patients (1,161 with conventional karyotyping and 976 with FISH) tested between 1998 and 2016 across 58 laboratories nationwide.
resultsInterlab and intralab variability was noted for the number of cells analyzed for karyotyping, with a significantly higher number of cells analyzed in patients in whom cytogenetics were normal (P 5.0025). For FISH testing, CD138-positive cell enrichment was used in 29.7% of patients and no enrichment in 50% of patients, whereas the remainder had unknown status. A significantly smaller number of cells was analyzed for patients in which CD138 cell enrichment was used compared with those without such enrichment (median, 50 v 200; P, .0001). A median of 7 loci probes (range, 1-16) were used for FISH testing across all laboratories, with variability in the loci probed even within a given laboratory. Chromosome 13-related abnormalities were the most frequently tested abnormality (n5956; 97.9%), and t(14;16) was the least frequently tested abnormality (n 5 119; 12.2%).
conclusionsWe report significant variability in cytogenetic testing across the United States for MM, potentially leading to variability in risk stratification, with possible clinical implications and personalized treatment approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.