| Title |
Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Blood, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1182/blood-2016-01-631200 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pieter Sonneveld, Hervé Avet-Loiseau, Sagar Lonial, Saad Usmani, David Siegel, Kenneth C Anderson, Wee-Joo Chng, Philippe Moreau, Michel Attal, Robert A Kyle, Jo Caers, Jens Hillengass, Jesús San Miguel, Niels W C J van de Donk, Hermann Einsele, Joan Bladé, Brian G M Durie, Hartmut Goldschmidt, María-Victoria Mateos, Antonio Palumbo, Robert Orlowski |
| Abstract |
The International Myeloma Working Group consensus updates the definition for high-risk multiple myeloma based on cytogenetics Several cytogenetic abnormalities such as t(4;14), del(17/17p), t(14;16), t(14;20), non-hyperdiploidy and gain(1q) were identified that confer poor prognosis. The prognosis of patients showing these abnormalities may vary with the choice of therapy. Treatment strategies that have shown promise for high risk cytogenetic diseases, such as proteasome inhibitor in combination with lenalidomide/pomalidomide, double autologous stem cell transplant plus bortezomib, or combination of immunotherapy with lenalidomide or pomalidomide. Careful analysis of cytogenetic subgroups in trials comparing different treatments remains an important goal. Cross trial comparisons may provide insight in the effect of new drugs in patients with cytogenetic abnormalities. However, in order to achieve this, consensus on definitions of analytical techniques, proportion of abnormal cells and treatment regimens is needed. Based on data available today, bortezomib and carfilzomib treatment appear to improve complete response, progression-free survival and overall survival in t(4;14) and del(17/17p), while lenalidomide may be associated with improved progression-free survival in t(4;14) and del(17/17p). Patients with multiple adverse cytogenetic abnormalities do not benefit from these agents. FISH data are implemented in the revised International Staging System for risk stratification. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 29% |
| Canada | 5 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 7% |
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 12% |
| Scientists | 4 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 571 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 569 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 82 | 14% |
| Other | 76 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 51 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 48 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 8% |
| Other | 136 | 24% |
| Unknown | 133 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 238 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 68 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 28 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 17 | 3% |
| Other | 50 | 9% |
| Unknown | 146 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 19 December 2023.
All research outputs
#985,222
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Blood
#703
of 33,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,808
of 317,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Blood
#18
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 317,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.