ArticleBlood advances2023
Impact of detectable monoclonal protein at diagnosis on outcomes in marginal zone lymphoma: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in Blood advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- [The guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of marginal zone lymphoma in China (2025)].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2025Guideline
- Transformation in marginal zone lymphoma: results from a prospective cohort and a meta-analysis of the literature.Blood advances · 2024Pooled it
- Solitary Pancreatic Extramedullary Plasmacytoma Diagnosed Through Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy-The Role of Endoscopic Diagnosis and Multidisciplinary Approach: A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The efficacy, safety, and rationale of orelabrutinib combined with obinutuzumab (O2) as a first-line systemic treatment for marginal zone lymphoma.Blood cancer journal · 2026Article
- Observational
- Prognostic Significance of Paraproteinemia in Marginal Zone LymphomaTurkish journal of haematology : official journal of Turkish Society of Haematology · 2026Article
- Impact of diagnosis to treatment interval on outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma - a US multisite study.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of Age on Biology, Presentation and Outcomes in Marginal Zone Lymphoma: Results From a Multicenter Cohort Study.Hematological oncology · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of transformed indolent lymphomas and de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a population-based cohort study.Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Ki-67 expression and large cell content as prognostic markers in MZL: a multicenter cohort study.Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
- Outcomes of marginal zone lymphoma treated with ibrutinib in the first-line setting in the United States: a real-world analysis.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Advances in the treatment of relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Impact of circulating lymphoma cells at diagnosis on outcomes in patients with marginal zone lymphoma: a multicenter cohort study.Blood advances · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Given the paucity of data surrounding the prognostic relevance of monoclonal paraprotein (M-protein) in marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), we sought to evaluate the impact of detecting M-protein at diagnosis on outcomes in patients with MZL in a large retrospective cohort. The study included 547 patients receiving first-line therapy for MZL. M-protein was detectable at diagnosis in 173 (32%) patients. There was no significant difference in the time from diagnosis to initiation of any therapy (systemic and local) between the M-protein and no M-protein groups. Patients with M-protein at diagnosis had significantly inferior progression-free survival (PFS) compared with those without M-protein at diagnosis. After adjusting for factors associated with inferior PFS in univariate models, presence of M-protein remained significantly associated with inferior PFS (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.54; P = .004). We observed no significant difference in the PFS based on the type or quantity of M-protein at diagnosis. There were differential outcomes in PFS based on the first-line therapy in patients with M-protein at diagnosis, in that, those receiving immunochemotherapy had better outcomes compared with those receiving rituximab monotherapy. The cumulative incidence of relapse in stage 1 disease among the recipients of local therapy was higher in the presence of M-protein; however, this did not reach statistical significance. We found that M-protein at diagnosis was associated with a higher risk of histologic transformation. Because the PFS difference related to presence of M-protein was not observed in patients receiving bendamustine and rituximab, immunochemotherapy may be a preferred approach over rituximab monotherapy in this group and needs to be explored further.
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.