Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 660

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical and biologic implications of recurrent genomic aberrations in myeloma

Fonseca, Rafael, Blood, Emily, Rue, Montserrat, Harrington, David, Oken, Martin M., Kyle, Robert A., Dewald, Gordon W., Van Ness, Brian, Van Wier, Scott A., Henderson, Kimberly J., Bailey, Richard J., Greipp, Philip R.·2003·Blood

Abstract

Nonrandom recurrent chromosomal abnormalities are ubiquitous in multiple myeloma (MM) and include, among others, translocations of the immunoglobulin heavy chain locus (IgH). IgH translocations in MM result in the up-regulation of oncogenes, and include more commonly t(11;14)(q13;q32), t(4;14)(p16;q32), and t(14;16)(q32;q23). Based on the recurrent nature of these translocations and their finding since the early stages of the plasma cell (PC) disorders, we hypothesized that they would confer biologic and clinical variability. In addition, deletions of 13q14 and 17p13 have also been associated with a shortened survival. We used cytoplasmic Ig—enhanced interphase fluorescent in situ hybridization to detect deletions (13q14 and 17p13.1), and translocations involving IgH in 351 patients treated with conventional chemotherapy entered into the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group clinical trial E9486/9487. Translocations were frequently unbalanced with loss of one of the derivative chromosomes. The presence of t(4; 14)(p16;q32) (n = 42; 26 vs 45 months, P < .001), t(14;16)(q32;q23) (n = 15; 16 vs 41 months, P = .003), – 17p13 (n = 37; 23 vs 44 months, P = .005), and – 13q14 (n = 176; 35 vs 51 months, P = .028) were associated with shorter survival. A stratification of patients into 3 distinct categories allowed for prognostication: poor prognosis group (t(4;14)(p16;q32), t(14; 16)(q32;q23), and – 17p13), intermediate prognosis (– 13q14), and good prognosis group (all others), with median survivals of 24.7, 42.3, and 50.5 months, respectively (P < .001). This molecular cytogenetic classification identifies patients into poor, intermediate, and good risk categories. More importantly it provides further compelling evidence that MM is composed of subgroups of patients categorized according to their underlying genomic aberrations.

Overview

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 · 10.1182/blood-2002-10-3017

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 660

Metadata

Authors
Fonseca, R., Blood, E., Rue, M., Harrington, D., Oken, M. M., Kyle, R. A., Dewald, G. W., Van Ness, B., Van Wier, S. A., Henderson, K. J., Bailey, R. J., & Greipp, P. R.
Venue
Blood
Published
2003-06-01
Volume
101
Issue
11
Pages
4569-4575
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2110486997
Cited by
660
References
3
FWCI
17.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical and biologic implications of recurrent genomic aberrations in myeloma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2002-10-3017
The paper
Fonseca, R., Blood, E., Rue, M., Harrington, D., Oken, M. M., Kyle, R. A., Dewald, G. W., Van Ness, B., Van Wier, S. A., Henderson, K. J., Bailey, R. J., & Greipp, P. R. (2003). Clinical and biologic implications of recurrent genomic aberrations in myeloma. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2002-10-3017

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.