Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 518

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma

Open access
Bartel, Twyla B., Haessler, Jeff, Brown, Tracy L. Y., Shaughnessy, John D., van Rhee, Frits, Anaissie, Elias, Alpe, Terri, Angtuaco, Edgardo, Walker, Ronald, Epstein, Joshua, Crowley, John, Barlogie, Bart·2009·Blood

Abstract

F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is a powerful tool to investigate the role of tumor metabolic activity and its suppression by therapy for cancer survival. As part of Total Therapy 3 for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, metastatic bone survey, magnetic resonance imaging, and FDG-PET scanning were evaluated in 239 untreated patients. All 3 imaging techniques showed correlations with prognostically relevant baseline parameters: the number of focal lesions (FLs), especially when FDG-avid by PET-computed tomography, was positively linked to high levels of β-2-microglobulin, C-reactive protein, and lactate dehydrogenase; among gene expression profiling parameters, high-risk and proliferation-related parameters were positively and low-bone-disease molecular subtype inversely correlated with FL. The presence of more than 3 FDG-avid FLs, related to fundamental features of myeloma biology and genomics, was the leading independent parameter associated with inferior overall and event-free survival. Complete FDG suppression in FL before first transplantation conferred significantly better outcomes and was only opposed by gene expression profiling-defined high-risk status, which together accounted for approximately 50% of survival variability (R2 test). Our results provide a rationale for testing the hypothesis that myeloma survival can be improved by altering treatment in patients in whom FDG suppression cannot be achieved after induction therapy.

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-2009-03-213280

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 518

Metadata

Authors
Bartel, T. B., Haessler, J., Brown, T. L. Y., Shaughnessy, J. D., van Rhee, F., Anaissie, E., Alpe, T., Angtuaco, E., Walker, R., Epstein, J., Crowley, J., & Barlogie, B.
Venue
Blood
Published
2009-09-03
Volume
114
Issue
10
Pages
2068-2076
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2073370692
Cited by
518
References
2
FWCI
16.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2009-03-213280
The paper
Bartel, T. B., Haessler, J., Brown, T. L. Y., Shaughnessy, J. D., van Rhee, F., Anaissie, E., Alpe, T., Angtuaco, E., Walker, R., Epstein, J., Crowley, J., & Barlogie, B. (2009). F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2009-03-213280

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.