ArticleHemaSphere2025
European Myeloma Network Group Consensus Statement on the use of next-generation sequencing for prognostic stratification of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Article in HemaSphere, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Evolving Role of Genomic Technologies in Multiple Myeloma: Implications for Diagnosis, Risk Stratification and Resistance.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
- Review
- Multiple myeloma in the real world settings: prognostic significance of 1q21 chromosomal abnormalities - single center experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the evolving understanding of genetic risk factors in multiple myeloma (MM), this paper assesses whether next-generation sequencing (NGS) could complement or even replace fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) at diagnosis. A structured consensus process within European Myeloma Network (EMN) clinical and laboratory groups was conducted to establish recommendations on routine clinical deployment of NGS in MM risk assessment. Four key questions were addressed: (1) should NGS be used in addition to, or alternatively to FISH in identifying prognostic genetic markers, (2) which prognostic markers are most relevant for analysis by NGS, (3) which patients should be offered NGS testing, and (4) what is the optimal timing for performing NGS. The panel reviewed current literature, evaluated available NGS technologies, and compared their performance with that of FISH-based methodologies. The paper reviews current standard NGS protocols, quality control measures, and provides practical points for the implementation of an NGS diagnosis in MM. While NGS shows promise in improving risk stratification, challenges such as cost, accessibility, and clinical workflow integration must be addressed. The consensus supports the initial incorporation of NGS as a complementary tool to FISH. Recommendations emphasize that: a broader list of genetic events should be incorporated into such a test than what currently requested by risk scores; the test should be offered at least to the fit patients who could be candidates for modern triplet or quadruplet treatments; the test should be repeated at the time relapse, especially in the future when targeted treatments may mandate the use of predictive markers of response. This consensus provides a foundation for future research and policy development, guiding the adoption of NGS in MM risk 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.