Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 928

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group

Open access
Sonneveld, Pieter, Avet-Loiseau, Hervé, Lonial, Sagar, Usmani, Saad, Siegel, David, Anderson, Kenneth C., Chng, Wee-Joo, Moreau, Philippe, Attal, Michel, Kyle, Robert A., Caers, Jo, Hillengass, Jens, San Miguel, Jesús, van de Donk, Niels W. C. J., Einsele, Hermann, Bladé, Joan, Durie, Brian G. M., Goldschmidt, Hartmut, Mateos, María-Victoria, Palumbo, Antonio, Orlowski, Robert·2016·Blood

Abstract

The International Myeloma Working Group consensus updates the definition for high-risk (HR) multiple myeloma based on cytogenetics Several cytogenetic abnormalities such as t(4;14), del(17/17p), t(14;16), t(14;20), nonhyperdiploidy, 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 have shown promise for HR cytogenetic diseases, such as proteasome inhibition 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 into the effect of new drugs in patients with cytogenetic abnormalities. However, 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), whereas 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.

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-2016-01-631200

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Cited by

See all 928

Metadata

Authors
Sonneveld, P., Avet-Loiseau, H., Lonial, S., Usmani, S., Siegel, D., Anderson, K. C., Chng, W.-J., Moreau, P., Attal, M., Kyle, R. A., Caers, J., Hillengass, J., San Miguel, J., van de Donk, N. W. C. J., Einsele, H., Bladé, J., Durie, B. G. M., Goldschmidt, H., Mateos, M.-V., Palumbo, A., & Orlowski, R.
Venue
Blood
Published
2016-06-16
Volume
127
Issue
24
Pages
2955-2962
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2318069817
Cited by
928
References
11
FWCI
66.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2016-01-631200
The paper
Sonneveld, P., Avet-Loiseau, H., Lonial, S., Usmani, S., Siegel, D., Anderson, K. C., Chng, W.-J., Moreau, P., Attal, M., Kyle, R. A., Caers, J., Hillengass, J., San Miguel, J., van de Donk, N. W. C. J., Einsele, H., Bladé, J., Durie, B. G. M., Goldschmidt, H., Mateos, M.-V., . . . Orlowski, R. (2016). Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-01-631200

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.