Cited by 239Multiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment

Impact of primary molecular cytogenetic abnormalities and risk of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma

Open access
Rajkumar, S V, Gupta, V, Fonseca, R, Dispenzieri, A, Gonsalves, W I, Larson, D, Ketterling, R P, Lust, J A +2 more·2013·Leukemia

Abstract

We studied 351 patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) in whom the underlying primary molecular cytogenetic subtype could be determined based on cytoplasmic immunoglobulin fluorescent in situ hybridization studies. Hundred and fifty-four patients (43.9%) had trisomies, 127 (36.2%) had immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH) translocations, 14 (4%) both trisomies and IgH translocations, 53 (15.1%) no abnormalities detected and 3 (0.9%) had monosomy13/del(13q) in the absence of any other abnormality. Among 127 patients with IgH translocations, 57 were t(11;14), 36 t(4;14), 11 musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma (MAF) translocations, and 23 other or unknown IgH translocation partner. Time to progression (TTP) to symptomatic multiple myeloma was significantly shorter in patients with the t(4;14) compared with patients with t(11;14), median 28 versus 55 months, respectively, P=0.025. The median TTP was 28 months with t(4;14) (high-risk), 34 months with trisomies alone (intermediate-risk), 55 months with t(11;14), MAF translocations, other/unknown IgH translocations, monosomy13/del(13q) without other abnormalities, and those with both trisomies and IgH translocations (standard-risk), and not reached in patients with no detectable abnormalities (low-risk), P=0.001. There was a trend to shorter TTP with deletion 17p (median TTP, 24 months). Overall survival from diagnosis of SMM was significantly inferior with t(4;14) compared with t(11;14), median 105 versus 147 months, respectively, P=0.036.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/leu.2013.86

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patients with t(4;14), del(17p), or gain(1q) have a higher risk of progression from MGUS or smoldering myeloma to multiple myeloma.

    “patients with t(4;14) translocation, del(17p), and gain(1q) are at a higher risk of progression from MGUS or SMM to multiple myeloma.21–23”

    From Multiple myeloma: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management (2024) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Results and Discussion (page numbers unavailable) report a significantly higher risk of progression to multiple myeloma for patients with SMM and t(4;14). They describe only a trend for del(17p), based on six patients, and do not establish a higher risk for gain(1q) or for patients with MGUS. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In MGUS and SMM, MAFB translocations associate with high-risk genomic features but do not always predict progression.

    “In the context of MGUS and SMM, these translocations still associate with high-risk genomic features,59,97,98 but strangely do not always predict progression as one might expect.9,90,99”

    From Evolution of Multiple Myeloma from a Genomic Perspective (2026) · cites this paper as [98]

    The Results (Impact of cytogenetic abnormalities on progression; page unavailable) classify the MAF translocation group as standard-risk for progression from SMM, and the Discussion says the small number of patients with t(14;20) had progression risk resembling t(11;14). This supports the progression point in SMM, but the paper does not assess progression from MGUS or establish a separate risk estimate for MAFB-associated t(14;20). The high-risk-genomic-features clause is attached to other citations, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • MAFB translocations are associated with poor outcomes, genomic complexity, and hyper-APOBEC in MM.

    “MAFB translocations are known to be associated with poor outcomes, genomic complexity, and hyper-APOBEC in MM.”

    From Evolution of Multiple Myeloma from a Genomic Perspective (2026) · cites this paper as [98]

    The Results (Impact of cytogenetic abnormalities on progression; page unavailable) classify MAF translocations, including t(14;20), as standard-risk for progression from smoldering myeloma. That does not establish outcomes for patients with MM, and the passages found do not address genomic complexity or hyper-APOBEC (searched: MAFB, poor prognosis, genomic complexity, APOBEC). (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [36]Kyle RA Durie BGM Rajkumar SV Landgren O Blade J Merlini G Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma: IMWG consensus perspectives risk factors for progression and guidelines for monitoring and management Leukemia 2010 24 1121 1127 20410922 PMC7020664

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rajkumar, S. V., Gupta, V, Fonseca, R., Dispenzieri, A., Gonsalves, W. I., Larson, D., Ketterling, R. P., Lust, J. A., Kyle, R. A., & Kumar, S. K.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Rajkumar, S V
Venue
Leukemia
Published
2013-03-21
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
1738-1744
ISSN
  • 0887-6924 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5551
OpenAlex
W2038908179
Cited by
239
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13
FWCI
16.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Leukemia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Mayo Clinic
  • National Cancer Institute (CA 107 476, R01CA083724, CA168762, P50CA100707, CA 83724, CA90297052, R01CA107476, U10CA021115, R01CA168762, CA100707)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
smoldering multiple myeloma, progression to multiple myeloma, chromosomal abnormalities, trisomy, del(13q), monosomy 13, 17p deletion, time to progression, overall survival, risk stratification
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chromosome Aberrations, Female, Humans, Immunoglobulin Heavy Chains, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Myeloma, Risk, Translocation, Genetic, Disease Progression

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review