Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33194599›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020

What Multiple Myeloma With t(11;14) Should Be Classified Into in Novel Agent Era: Standard or Intermediate Risk?

Wen Gao, Juan Du, Junru Liu, Huixing Zhou, Zhiyao Zhang, Yuan Jian, Guangzhong Yang, Guorong Wang, Ying Tian, Yanchen Li and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Wen GaoDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Juan DuDepartment of Hematology, The Myeloma & Lymphoma Center, Changzheng Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Junru LiuDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Huixing ZhouDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhiyao ZhangDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yuan JianDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Guangzhong YangDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Guorong WangDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ying TianDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yanchen LiDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yin WuDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Weijun FuDepartment of Hematology, The Myeloma & Lymphoma Center, Changzheng Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Juan LiDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Wenming ChenDepartment of Hematology, Myeloma Research Center of Beijing, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Chao-Yang Hospital · CNSecond Military Medical University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNThe First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the prognostic value of t(11;14) for

methodsA total of 455 patients with fluorescence

resultsA total of 152 patients were in the HR group. Of patients without HR cytogenetics, 55 were in the t(11;14) group, and 248 were in the standard risk (SR) group without t(11;14). Gain in 1q21 was observed in 38.9% patients with t(11;14). There were no differences in median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), respectively, between patients in the t(11;14) group and those in the SR group. Patients in the t(11;14) group had the longer median PFS and OS, respectively, compared with those in the HR group. Regardless of coexisting with 1q21 gain or not, patients in the t(11;14) group still had similar median PFS and OS compared to those in the SR group. Finally, multivariate analysis indicated that including 1q21 gain and bone marrow plasma cell with CD20 expression, no variables were found to predict the outcome of the t(11;14) group in our cohort.

conclusionsThese results confirm that outcomes of t(11;14) MM are similar to standard risk patients when they receive novel agent induction therapy consolidated by ASCT. Gain of 1q21 coexists with t(11;14) frequently. In addition, both bone marrow plasma cell with CD20 expression and 1q21 gain have no impact on median PFS or OS for patients with t(11;14).

Indexed as

1q21 gainautologous stem cell transplantationmultiple myelomanovel agentt(11;14)

Identifiers

PMID33194599
PMCPMC7649769
OpenAlexW3096248233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.