| Title |
Evaluation of Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) for transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Hematology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00277-018-3316-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Verónica González-Calle, Abigail Slack, Niamh Keane, Susan Luft, Kathryn E. Pearce, Rhett P. Ketterling, Tania Jain, Sintosebastian Chirackal, Craig Reeder, Joseph Mikhael, Pierre Noel, Angela Mayo, Roberta H. Adams, Gregory Ahmann, Esteban Braggio, A. Keith Stewart, P. Leif Bergsagel, Scott A. Van Wier, Rafael Fonseca |
| Abstract |
The International Myeloma Working Group has proposed the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) for risk stratification of multiple myeloma (MM) patients. There are a limited number of studies that have validated this risk model in the autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) setting. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the applicability and value for predicting survival of the R-ISS model in 134 MM patients treated with new agents and ASCT at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona and the University Hospital of Salamanca in Spain. The patients were reclassified at diagnosis according to the R-ISS: 44 patients (33%) had stage I, 75 (56%) had stage II, and 15 (11%) had stage III. After a median follow-up of 60 months, R-ISS assessed at diagnosis was an independent predictor for overall survival (OS) after ASCT, with median OS not reached, 111 and 37 months for R-ISS I, II and III, respectively (P < 0.001). We also found that patients belonging to R-ISS II and having high-risk chromosomal abnormalities (CA) had a significant shorter median OS than those with R-ISS II without CA: 70 vs. 111 months, respectively. Therefore, this study lends further support for the R-ISS as a reliable prognostic tool for estimating survival in transplant myeloma patients and suggests the importance of high-risk CA in the R-ISS II group. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#8,495,137
of 25,362,520 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Hematology
#529
of 2,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,743
of 336,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Hematology
#16
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,388 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.