ArticleBlood cancer journal2021
Assessing the prognostic utility of smoldering multiple myeloma risk stratification scores applied serially post diagnosis.
Article in Blood cancer journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced dynamic risk stratification of smoldering multiple myeloma.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnosis, risk stratification and management of smouldering multiple myeloma.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Temporal trends in progression risk in smoldering myeloma: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Navigating the evolving management of smoldering multiple myeloma.HemaSphere · 2026Review
- Current risk stratification and staging of multiple myeloma and related clonal plasma cell disorders.Leukemia · 2025Review
- Yearly Assessment of Bone Disease in Patients with Asymptomatic Multiple Myeloma Identifies Early Progression Events and Should Be the Standard Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Real-world characteristics and outcomes of patients with high-risk and non-high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma using the Flatiron Health database.Blood cancer journal · 2024Observational
- New horizons in our understanding of precursor multiple myeloma and early interception.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2024Review
- How to Identify and Manage High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Longitudinal assessment of established risk stratification models in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
- Multiple myeloma.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024Review
- The evolving pattern of the monoclonal protein improves the IMWG 2/20/20 classification for patients with smoldering multiple myeloma.HemaSphere · 2024Article
- Is aggressive treatment of smoldering myeloma the path to curing myeloma?Blood advances · 2023Article
- Personalised progression prediction in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance or smouldering multiple myeloma (PANGEA): a retrospective, multicohort study.The Lancet. Haematology · 2023Article
- Monoclonal Gammopathies and the Bone Marrow Microenvironment: From Bench to Bedside and Then Back Again.Hematology reports · 2023Review
- The consultant's guide to smoldering multiple myeloma.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Mayo-2018 smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) risk score is used routinely in the clinical setting but has only been validated at diagnosis. In SMM patients, the progression risk decreases over time. However, the utility of applying risk stratification models after diagnosis is unknown. We retrospectively studied 704 SMM patients and applied the Mayo 2018 and IMWG-2020 risk stratification models at annual landmark timepoints up to 5 years post diagnosis. The Mayo-2018 and IMWG-2020 models reliably stratified patients based on progression risk when applied post diagnosis. The respective 2-year progression risk in Mayo-2018 high risk patients versus IMWG-2020 intermediate-high risk patients was 51% versus 62% at the 1-year landmark and 47% versus 45% at the 4-year landmark. We showed that patients categorized at Mayo-2018 high-risk at follow-up had a similar risk of progression if the baseline risk assessment was low-intermediate versus high-risk (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.46-2.36, p = 0.931 at 5-year landmark). Patients migrating to a higher risk category during follow up had a higher progression risk compared to patients with stable/decreased risk categorization. Our findings support the use of these risk scores post-diagnosis and suggest that patients evolving to a high-risk category may benefit from early intervention therapeutic 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.