Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39437710›Full record

ArticleBlood2025

Comparison of progression risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance by method of detection.

Alissa Visram, Dirk Larson, Aaron Norman, Angela Dispenzieri, David Murray, Robert Kyle, S Vincent Rajkumar, Susan Slager, Shaji Kumar, Celine Vachon

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Blood, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Genomics Define Malignant Transformation in Myeloma Precursor Conditions.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
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

10 authors.

Alissa VisramDivision of Hematology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7201-4642
Dirk LarsonDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0002-2970-2124
Aaron NormanDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Angela DispenzieriDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0001-8780-9512
David MurrayDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Robert KyleDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
S Vincent RajkumarDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Susan SlagerDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0002-5173-4712
Shaji KumarDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0001-5392-9284
Celine VachonDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0002-1962-9322

Funding

Project 4: Targeting Resistance to T-Cell Directed Therapy in Multiple MyelomaP50CA186781 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ARIZONA · PI Yi Lin · 2015 to 2026
$25.5M
Impact of Genetic susceptibility along the continuum from MGUS to MM (Supplement)U01CA271014 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Elizabeth E Brown, SHAJI Kunnathu KUMAR · 2022 to 2026
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA186781NCI NIH HHS U01 CA271014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractMonoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is an asymptomatic premalignant disorder. The current standard of care is not to screen for MGUS, so it is often incidentally diagnosed in the clinic. It is unknown whether the outcomes of screened vs clinically detected MGUS differ. We compared the progression risk between screened vs clinical MGUS cohorts and assessed whether the MGUS detection method affected risk prediction of established clinical factors (score). We included 379 screened MGUS cases from the Olmsted County population-based study and 1384 patients with MGUS diagnosed during routine clinical evaluation at Mayo Clinic. Median follow-up time for the screened vs clinical cohort was 26.6 and 40.1 years, respectively. Accounting for death as a competing risk, the cumulative incidence of progression at 25 years was similar in the screened (11.1% [95% confidence interval [CI], 8.3-14.8]) vs clinical (10.1% [95% CI, 8.6-11.8]) MGUS cohorts, even when stratified by sex, age, or the baseline MGUS risk score. Overall, 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2) of patients with screened MGUS vs 1.0 (95% CI, 0.9-1.2) of those with clinically detected MGUS experienced disease progression for every 100 person-years of follow-up. MGUS detection method did not modify the association between MGUS risk score and progression risk (pinteraction = 0.217) and did not add to known risk factors for progression (likelihood ratio test; P = .839). Here, we show that progression risk among patients with screened vs clinically detected heavy-chain MGUS was similar. Future studies are needed to assess whether tailored follow-up of patients with screened MGUS affects clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined SignificanceAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID39437710
PMCPMC12060158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.