ArticleHemaSphere2024
High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in multiple myeloma: PETHEMA-GEM experience.
Article in HemaSphere, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human biomarker navigator.iMeta · 2026Review
- Prognostic Significance of Isolated Beta 2-Microglobulin Elevation in Thai Multiple Myeloma: Impact of Renal Function Assessment.Journal of hematology · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Double-Hit and Single High-Risk Cytogenetic Newly Diagnosed Myeloma in Transplant-Eligible Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Impact of CYP and ABCB1 Polymorphisms on Bortezomib-Induced Adverse Events in Multiple Myeloma.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Evidence for the Monitoring of Minimal Residual Disease Dynamics to Guide Clinical Practice in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.Targeted oncology · 2026Review
- Impact of 1q vulnerabilities in patients treated with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Multi-omics profiling and AI-driven clinically deployable risk models in MGUS and smoldering myeloma.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines the impact of cytogenetic abnormalities and their co-segregation on the prognosis of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. The analysis included 1304 patients from four different GEM-PETHEMA clinical trials. Genetic alterations, such as t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p), +1q, and del(1p), were investigated using FISH on CD38 purified plasma cells. The frequency of genetic alterations detected were as follows: del(17p) in 8%, t(4;14) in 12%, t(14;16) in 3%, +1q in 43%, and del(1p) in 8%. The median follow-up was 61 months, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 44 months and not reached, respectively. Consistent with previous reports, the presence of t(4;14) was associated with shorter PFS and OS. In our series, the presence of t(14;16) did not impact survival, maybe due to limitations in sample size. Del(17p) was linked to poor prognosis using a cut-off level of ≥20% positive cells, without any impact of higher cut-off in prognosis, except for patients with clonal fraction ≥80% who had a dismal outcome. Cosegregation of cytogenetic abnormalities patients worsened the prognosis in t(4;14) patients but not in patients with del(17p), which retained its adverse prognosis even as a solitary abnormality. Gain(1q) was associated with significantly shorter PFS and OS, while del(1p) affected PFS but not OS. Nevertheless, when co-segregation was eliminated, the detrimental effect of +1q or del(1p) was no longer observed. In conclusion, this study confirms the prognostic significance of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in MM and highlights the importance of considering co-occurrence for accurate prognosis assessment.
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.