ArticleBlood cancer journal2024
Mode of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma: a study of 406 patients.
Article in Blood cancer journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observation or treatment for smoldering multiple myeloma? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.Blood cancer journal · 2025Pooled it
- Smoldering multiple myeloma: a multi-country mixed-methods study on disease perceptions and patient treatment preferences.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Smoldering multiple myeloma: advances in diagnosis and risk stratification, and evolving therapeutic strategies.International journal of hematology · 2026Review
- Recognising disease progression in MGUS and smouldering myeloma: Biomarkers, symptom monitoring and imaging.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
- 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
- Why We Do Not Recommend That People With High-Risk Smoldering Myeloma Receive Treatment.American journal of hematology · 2026Article
- Surveillance of Smoldering Myeloma Patients Who Progress to Active Disease Is Associated with Favorable Outcomes.Cancers · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Organization of Telomeres: An Emerging Prognostic Biomarker in Multiple Myeloma.Cells · 2025Review
- Patterns of progression among 427 patients with smoldering myeloma diagnosed after 2014: importance of monitoring.Blood advances · 2025Article
- Contextualizing results of randomized trials in smoldering myeloma.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Genomic landscape of multiple myeloma and its precursor conditions.Nature genetics · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Smoldering multiple myeloma: Integrating biology and risk into management.Seminars in hematology · 2025Review
- How to Identify and Manage High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Patterns of progression in a contemporary cohort of 447 patients with smoldering multiple myeloma.Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
- Is It Possible to Predict Tumor Progression Through Genomic Characterization of Monoclonal Gammopathy and Smoldering Multiple Myeloma?Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The approach to patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) varies among clinicians; while some advocate early intervention, others reserve treatment at progression to multiple myeloma (MM). We aimed to describe the myeloma-defining events (MDEs) and clinical presentations leading to MM diagnosis among SMM patients seen at our institution. We included 406 patients diagnosed with SMM between 2013-2022, seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. The 2018 Mayo 20/2/20 criteria were used for risk stratification. Median follow-up was 3.9 years. Among high-risk patients who did not receive treatment in the SMM phase (n = 71), 51 progressed by last follow-up; the MDEs included: bone lesions (37%), anemia (35%), hypercalcemia (8%), and renal failure (6%); 24% met MM criteria based on marrow plasmacytosis (≥60%) and/or free light chain ratio (>100); 45% had clinically significant MDEs (hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency, and/or bone lesions). MM diagnosis was made based on surveillance labs/imaging(45%), testing obtained due to provider suspicion for progression (14%), bone pain (20%), and hospitalization/ED presentations due to MM complications/symptoms (4%). The presentation was undocumented in 14%. A high proportion (45%) of patients with high-risk SMM on active surveillance develop end-organ damage at progression. About a quarter of patients who progress to MM are not diagnosed based on routine interval surveillance testing.
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.