Literature DB >> 32157174

Predicting ultrahigh risk multiple myeloma by molecular profiling: an analysis of newly diagnosed transplant eligible myeloma XI trial patients.

Vallari Shah1, Amy L Sherborne1, David C Johnson1, Sidra Ellis1, Amy Price1, Farzana Chowdhury1, Jack Kendall1, Matthew W Jenner2, Mark T Drayson3, Roger G Owen4, Walter M Gregory5, Gareth J Morgan6, Faith E Davies6, Gordon Cook7, David A Cairns5, Richard S Houlston1,8, Graham Jackson9, Martin F Kaiser10.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32157174      PMCID: PMC7584474          DOI: 10.1038/s41375-020-0750-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Leukemia        ISSN: 0887-6924            Impact factor:   11.528


× No keyword cloud information.
The prognosis for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) has improved with the advent of new agents, but outcome in some patients remains very poor. Identifying patients with high-risk disease early opens up the prospect of stratified treatment [1-3]. Biomarkers including chromosomal aberrations t(4;14), t(14;16), and t(14;20) translocations, gain of 1q and deletion of 17p, detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and qRT-PCR-based translocation detection, have been associated with adverse outcome and co-occurrence of ≥2 such aberrations (a double-hit) is predictive of especially aggressive MM [4, 5]. Multiple gene expression profiles (GEP) have been reported to be associated with outcome, but so far only EMC92 and UAMS GEP70 have been developed into validated clinical tests, marketed as SKY92 MMprofiler and MyPRS, respectively [6-9]. To examine the combined predictive value of high-risk chromosomal abnormalities and SKY92 risk GEP we studied 329 NDMM patients from the NCRI Myeloma XI trial (ISRCTN49407852) who received intensive therapy (Supplementary Table 1) and validated findings in Medical Research Council (MRC) Myeloma IX trial patients (Supplementary Methods) [10, 11]. In both cohorts of patients purified (>95%) CD138-positive tumor cells were immunomagnetically selected and DNA and RNA were extracted using QIAGEN (Hilden, Germany) Allprep kits. Chromosomal aberrations, including high-risk lesions t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), gain(1q), and del(17p), were assessed using qRT-PCR (Thermo Fisher, Darford, UK) and MLPA (MRC Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), as previously reported (Supplementary Methods) [4]. GEP risk status was determined on a diagnostic Affymetrix GeneChip 3000 Dx v2.0 system (Thermo Fisher) using the SKY92 MMProfiler (SkylineDx, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) (Supplementary Methods). Statistical analyses were performed in R (version 3.5.1) as detailed in Supplementary Methods. MMprofiler assay results by SkylineDx identified 81 of the 329 Myeloma XI trial patients (24.6%) to have a SKY92 high-risk tumor signature (Supplementary Table 2). SKY92 high-risk patients had significantly shorter PFS (median 16.0 vs. 33.8 months; HR 2.6, 95% CI: 2.0–3.5; P = 4.1 × 10−11) and OS (median 36.7 months vs. not reached; HR 3.9, 95% CI: 2.7–5.7; P = 2.5 × 10−13) (Supplementary Fig. 1; Table 1), regardless of induction regimen and posttransplant randomization (Supplementary Figs. 2, 3; Supplementary Tables 3–5). Specifically, patients with SKY92 high-risk disease did not derive statistically significant benefit from lenalidomide single agent maintenance therapy (Fig. 1; Supplementary Fig. 3).
Table 1

Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard survival analyses of genetic, gene expression, and clinical risk markers for PFS and OS for 329 representative Myeloma XI NDMM patients from induction randomization.

Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
Progression free survivalProgression free survival
HR (95% CI)Wald PHR (95% CI)Wald P
SKY92 high-risk2.6 (1.96–3.45)4.08 × 10−11SKY92 high-risk2.14 (1.54–2.96)0.00000475
Hyperdiploid0.74 (0.57–0.95)0.0198Hyperdiploid0.93 (0.7–1.24)0.634
Adverse translocation2.04 (1.53–2.72)1.12 × 10−06Adverse translocation1.89 (1.36–2.62)0.00015
Del(1p) [CDKN2C]1.47 (1–2.18)0.0514Del(1p) [CDKN2C]1.01 (0.65–1.56)0.979
Del(17p) [TP53]1.63 (1.09–2.42)0.016Del(17p) [TP53]1.32 (0.87–2.0)0.198
Gain(1q)1.44 (1.11–1.88)0.00634Gain(1q)0.88 (0.65–1.2)0.425
Age1.04 (1.02–1.06)0.00012Age1.04 (1.02–1.06)0.000144
Induction randomization0.77 (0.59–0.99)0.0417Induction randomization1.2 (0.92–1.55)0.176
ISS1.33 (1.12–1.58)0.0012ISS1.13 (0.95–1.36)0.176
n = 328, events = 232
Overall survivalOverall survival
HR (95% CI)Wald PHR (95% CI)Wald P
SKY92 high-risk3.94 (2.73–5.69)2.54 × 10−13SKY92 high-risk2.72 (1.78–4.16)0.00000396
Hyperdiploid0.6 (0.42–0.87)0.00717Hyperdiploid0.91 (0.6–1.37)0.647
Adverse translocation2.5 (1.72–3.64)1.67 × 10−06Adverse translocation1.85 (1.19–2.88)0.0061
Del(1p) [CDKN2C]2.38 (1.49–3.79)0.000271Del(1p) [CDKN2C]1.29 (0.76–2.2)0.343
Del(17p) [TP53]3.02 (1.87–4.87)5.76 × 10−06Del(17p) [TP53]2.48 (1.48–4.17)0.000602
Gain(1q)2.39 (1.66–3.44)2.98 × 10−06Gain(1q)1.3 (0.85–1.97)0.222
Age0.62 (0.43–0.9)0.0113Age1.02 (0.99–1.05)0.2
Induction randomization0.62 (0.43–0.9)0.0113Induction randomization1.31 (0.9–1.91)0.153
ISS1.38 (1.08–1.76)0.0101ISS1.09 (0.84–1.43)0.512
N = 328, events = 117

Statistically significant P < 0.05 values are in bold.

Fig. 1

Patient outcome in context of GEP and chromosomal high-risk markers and their respective frequencies and distribution in Myeloma XI.

Kaplan–Meier plot of Myeloma XI trial patients (n = 329) in context of SKY92 risk profiling for (a) PFS, (b) OS from maintenance randomization, with survival curves for patients randomized to lenalidomide or observation plotted separately. Log-rank P values displayed. c, d Kaplan–Meier plots of molecular risk groups defined by absence of any high-risk marker, presence of a single genetic risk marker, presence of either double-hit or SKY92 high-risk or combined double-hit and SKY92 high-risk for c PFS, d OS from induction randomization. e Venn diagram of patients with tumors positive for validated genetic risk markers adverse translocations, gain(1q), del(17p), SKY92 GEP high-risk. % is relative to 188 patients with high-risk lesions, (%) relative to all patients (n = 329) in the study. Frequency represented by gray color coding, with darker gray indicating higher frequency.

Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard survival analyses of genetic, gene expression, and clinical risk markers for PFS and OS for 329 representative Myeloma XI NDMM patients from induction randomization. Statistically significant P < 0.05 values are in bold.

Patient outcome in context of GEP and chromosomal high-risk markers and their respective frequencies and distribution in Myeloma XI.

Kaplan–Meier plot of Myeloma XI trial patients (n = 329) in context of SKY92 risk profiling for (a) PFS, (b) OS from maintenance randomization, with survival curves for patients randomized to lenalidomide or observation plotted separately. Log-rank P values displayed. c, d Kaplan–Meier plots of molecular risk groups defined by absence of any high-risk marker, presence of a single genetic risk marker, presence of either double-hit or SKY92 high-risk or combined double-hit and SKY92 high-risk for c PFS, d OS from induction randomization. e Venn diagram of patients with tumors positive for validated genetic risk markers adverse translocations, gain(1q), del(17p), SKY92 GEP high-risk. % is relative to 188 patients with high-risk lesions, (%) relative to all patients (n = 329) in the study. Frequency represented by gray color coding, with darker gray indicating higher frequency. There was partial overlap between patients with GEP or chromosomal high-risk markers (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 2), with 6.1% (20/329) of patients showing SKY92 positivity but absence of chromosomal high-risk markers. We analyzed prognostic association of molecular and clinical risk markers in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model and found presence of SKY92 high-risk (HR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.8–4.2; P = 4.4 × 10−6), adverse translocations (HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2–2.9; P = 0.007), and del(17p) (HR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.5–4.1; P = 0.0007) to be independently associated with shorter OS and SKY92 high-risk (HR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5–3.0; P = 4.8 × 10−6) and adverse translocations (HR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.4–2.6; P = 0.0002) with shorter PFS (Table 1). Results were similar when analyzing GEP risk status with the UAMS GEP70 signature: by multivariable analysis UAMS GEP70 high-risk (HR = 2.54; 95% CI: 1.56–4.13; P = 1.8 × 10−4), presence of del(17p) (HR = 2.22; 95% CI: 1.32–3.72; P = 0.0025), and adverse translocation (HR = 2.11; 95% CI: 1.35–3.28; P = 9.5 × 10−4) were independently associated with shorter OS. However, GEP70 was not independently associated with shorter PFS (Supplementary Table 6). One hundred and sixty-one patient tumors carried no chromosomal high-risk marker, of which 20 (12%) were SKY92 high-risk. The presence SKY92 GEP high-risk in isolation was significantly associated with shorter PFS (HR = 3.18; 95% CI: 1.86–5.46; P = 2.6 × 10−5; median 15.8 vs. 41.7 months) and OS (HR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.04–5.67; P = 0.04; estimated 4 year OS 55% vs. 86%; Supplementary Fig. 4; Supplementary Table 7). We have previously demonstrated the adverse prognosis of double-hit tumors, defined by co-occurrence of ≥2 chromosomal high-risk markers [4]. SKY92 and double-hit were independently prognostic by multivariable analysis, with HRs 2.9 (95% CI: 1.9–4.2; P = 2.6 × 10−7) and 2.3 (95% CI: 1.5–3.6; P = 0.0002) for OS and HRs 2.0 (95% CI: 1.5–2.8; P = 6.8 × 10−6) and 1.6 (95% CI: 1.2–2.3; P = 0.005) for PFS, respectively (Supplementary Table 8). Results were consistent when PFS and OS were measured from maintenance randomization (Supplementary Table 8). We defined four risk groups combining predictive SKY92 and chromosomal high-risk markers: double-hit AND SKY92 (9.7% of pts), double-hit OR SKY92 (23.4% of pts), a single chromosomal high-risk marker (24.0% of pts), and no risk marker (42.9% of pts). Hazard ratios for OS were 11.0 (95% CI: 6.3–19.1; P < 2.2 × 10−16), 3.8 (95% CI: 2.3–6.3; P = 2 × 10−7), and 1.9 (95% CI: 1.1–3.3; P = 0.03) compared with those without risk markers, and HRs for PFS were 4.5 (95% CI: 3.0–6.9; P = 2.3 × 10−12), 2.3 (95% CI: 1.7–3.3; P = 4.4 × 10−7), and 1.3 (95% CI: 0.9–1.9; P = 0.118), respectively (Fig. 1; Supplementary Table 9). Results were consistent when PFS and OS were measured from time point of ASCT (Supplementary Fig. 5; Supplementary Table 9). Of note, lenalidomide single agent maintenance markedly extended PFS in patients with a single chromosomal high-risk marker (HR 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03–0.41; P = 0.0001) or no risk marker (HR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12–0.58; P = 0.001) when compared with observation. In contrast, those with SKY92 and/or double-hit (HR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.12–1.72, P = 0.24; HR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.32–1.37; P = 0.27, respectively) did not derive consistent benefit from lenalidomide maintenance (Supplementary Fig. 6). Patients with combined double-hit and SKY92 high-risk status (9.7%) had poor survival outcomes: all patients (100%) progressed within 48 months from initial randomization and predicted OS at 48 months was 12.5% (Fig. 1). To confirm ultra-high-risk behavior of combined double-hit and SKY92 tumors in an independent trial, we analyzed 116 patients from the intensive, transplant treatment arm of MRC Myeloma IX. Eight (6.9%) patients showed double-hit and EMC92 ultra-high-risk; all patients progressed within 36 months and died within 48 months. Meta-analysis using a random-effect model showed a HR for OS of 6.0 (95% CI: 4.1–8.9; P = 4.8 × 10−20) and HR of 3.5 (95% CI: 2.5–4.9; P = 6.9 × 10−13) for PFS for patients with combined GEP and double-hit tumors (Supplementary Fig. 7). After accounting for GEP and chromosomal high-risk status, ISS and serum LDH were not predictive of outcome (Supplementary Fig. 8; Supplementary Table 10). We found significant overlap of these clinical and molecular risk markers: frequency of ISS 3 was higher in SKY92 high-risk vs. non-high-risk (38% vs. 21%; P = 0.003; Supplementary Fig. 9) and in those with multiple chromosomal high-risk risk lesions (21.5% without vs. 28.6% with single hit vs. 43.8% with double-hit). Only 15.6% of double-hit tumor patients were ISS 1 at diagnosis (Supplementary Fig. 9), whereas 71% of patients with ISS 3 carried one or more chromosomal or SKY92 high-risk marker. Similarly, baseline LDH was higher in patients with SKY92 or double-hit tumors vs. those without (Supplementary Figs. 9, 10). We furthermore interrogated a range of risk signatures beyond binary (high-risk/non-high-risk) clinical read-out. Quantitative risk scores were correlated for most clinical signatures, most markedly EMC92 and GEP70 (r = 0.79; P < 0.001) (Supplementary Fig. 11). The EMC92 score (r = 0.64, P < 0.001) as well as most others also correlated with the in vitro model derived Proliferation Index (Supplementary Fig. 11). Extreme copy number abnormalities (CNAs; amplification (≥4 copies) or homozygous deletion) have recently been proposed as exclusive drivers of high-risk MM [12], prompting us to investigate the correlation of quantitative CNAs with GEP risk scores. Median EMC92 scores were higher in tumors with gain(1q) vs. those without (P = 2.1 × 10−8) but there was no difference between gain (three copies) and amplification of 1q (≥4 copies) (P = 0.56; Supplementary Fig. 12), with a wide range of GEP scores in the latter. Tumors with deletion 17p had significantly higher median EMC92 GEP scores than those without deletion. Homozygous del(17p) was rare (n = 2), as expected, not allowing for formal comparison (Supplementary Fig. 12). Tumors with high-risk translocations had on average higher EMC92 scores than those without (Supplementary Fig. 13). Our results demonstrate the prospective prognostic validity of SKY92 profiling in the wider context as a means of identifying patients at diagnosis who have high-risk MM, and show the independent association of SKY92 and high-risk chromosomal aberrations with outcome [9]. Our results highlight the molecular diversity of MM and demonstrate that single time point combined GEP and chromosomal profiling at diagnosis can predict clinical outcome with significant precision, in line with recent findings across multiple solid cancers [13, 14]. We furthermore demonstrate that in context of combined SKY92 and chromosomal profiling, ISS and LDH are not independently predictive. This is perhaps not unexpected, since ISS and LDH are clinical surrogate markers for tumor proliferation, which is assessed by combined GEP and double-hit profiling. Our analysis was, however, limited to younger and fitter, transplant-eligible patients and clinical risk markers such as ISS may have greater and independent relevance in older or frailer patients [15]. Our results demonstrate that patients with double-hit or GEP high-risk status are unlikely to benefit from current treatment approaches, including single agent lenalidomide maintenance therapy. In such patients intensified ongoing therapy with combination agents may be beneficial [3]. Such an assertion will be prospectively assessed in clinical studies such as the risk stratified UK OPTIMUM (MUKnine) trial (NCT03188172). In conclusion, our findings support the further adoption of molecular biomarkers to stratify NDMM patient therapy.
  15 in total

1.  A gene expression signature for high-risk multiple myeloma.

Authors:  R Kuiper; A Broyl; Y de Knegt; M H van Vliet; E H van Beers; B van der Holt; L el Jarari; G Mulligan; W Gregory; G Morgan; H Goldschmidt; H M Lokhorst; M van Duin; P Sonneveld
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 11.528

2.  Prognostic Validation of SKY92 and Its Combination With ISS in an Independent Cohort of Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Erik H van Beers; Martin H van Vliet; Rowan Kuiper; Leonie de Best; Kenneth C Anderson; Ajai Chari; Sundar Jagannath; Andrzej Jakubowiak; Shaji K Kumar; Joan B Levy; Daniel Auclair; Sagar Lonial; Donna Reece; Paul Richardson; David S Siegel; A Keith Stewart; Suzanne Trudel; Ravi Vij; Todd M Zimmerman; Rafael Fonseca
Journal:  Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk       Date:  2017-07-04

3.  A high-risk signature for patients with multiple myeloma established from the molecular classification of human myeloma cell lines.

Authors:  Jérôme Moreaux; Bernard Klein; Régis Bataille; Géraldine Descamps; Sophie Maïga; Dirk Hose; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Anna Jauch; Thierry Rème; Michel Jourdan; Martine Amiot; Catherine Pellat-Deceunynck
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 9.941

Review 4.  Multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Shaji K Kumar; Vincent Rajkumar; Robert A Kyle; Mark van Duin; Pieter Sonneveld; María-Victoria Mateos; Francesca Gay; Kenneth C Anderson
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 52.329

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

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
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 22.113

6.  Long-term follow-up of MRC Myeloma IX trial: Survival outcomes with bisphosphonate and thalidomide treatment.

Authors:  Gareth J Morgan; Faith E Davies; Walter M Gregory; Susan E Bell; Alexander J Szubert; Gordon Cook; Mark T Drayson; Roger G Owen; Fiona M Ross; Graham H Jackson; J Anthony Child
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  A novel prognostic model in myeloma based on co-segregating adverse FISH lesions and the ISS: analysis of patients treated in the MRC Myeloma IX trial.

Authors:  K D Boyd; F M Ross; L Chiecchio; G P Dagrada; Z J Konn; W J Tapper; B A Walker; C P Wardell; W M Gregory; A J Szubert; S E Bell; J A Child; G H Jackson; F E Davies; G J Morgan
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 11.528

8.  Translating a gene expression signature for multiple myeloma prognosis into a robust high-throughput assay for clinical use.

Authors:  Ryan van Laar; Rachel Flinchum; Nathan Brown; Joseph Ramsey; Sam Riccitelli; Christoph Heuck; Bart Barlogie; John D Shaughnessy
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2014-05-17       Impact factor: 3.063

9.  Prediction of outcome in newly diagnosed myeloma: a meta-analysis of the molecular profiles of 1905 trial patients.

Authors:  V Shah; A L Sherborne; B A Walker; D C Johnson; E M Boyle; S Ellis; D B Begum; P Z Proszek; J R Jones; C Pawlyn; S Savola; M W Jenner; M T Drayson; R G Owen; R S Houlston; D A Cairns; W M Gregory; G Cook; F E Davies; G H Jackson; G J Morgan; M F Kaiser
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 11.528

10.  Lenalidomide maintenance versus observation for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Graham H Jackson; Faith E Davies; Charlotte Pawlyn; David A Cairns; Alina Striha; Corinne Collett; Anna Hockaday; John R Jones; Bhuvan Kishore; Mamta Garg; Cathy D Williams; Kamaraj Karunanithi; Jindriska Lindsay; Matthew W Jenner; Gordon Cook; Nigel H Russell; Martin F Kaiser; Mark T Drayson; Roger G Owen; Walter M Gregory; Gareth J Morgan
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Current Approach to Managing Patients with Newly Diagnosed High-Risk Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Naimisha Marneni; Rajshekhar Chakraborty
Journal:  Curr Hematol Malig Rep       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 3.952

Review 2.  High-risk disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: beyond the R-ISS and IMWG definitions.

Authors:  Patrick Hagen; Jiwang Zhang; Kevin Barton
Journal:  Blood Cancer J       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 9.812

3.  Prognostic gene expression analysis in a retrospective, multinational cohort of 155 multiple myeloma patients treated outside clinical trials.

Authors:  Yan-Ting Chen; Erik T Valent; Erik H van Beers; Rowan Kuiper; Stefania Oliva; Torsten Haferlach; Wee-Joo Chng; Martin H van Vliet; Pieter Sonneveld; Alessandra Larocca
Journal:  Int J Lab Hematol       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 3.450

4.  Gene expression profiling impacts treatment decision making in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients in the prospective PROMMIS trial.

Authors:  Noa Biran; Binod Dhakal; Suzanne Lentzsch; David Siegel; Saad Z Usmani; Adriana Rossi; Cara Rosenbaum; Divaya Bhutani; David H Vesole; Cesar Rodriguez; Ajay K Nooka; Frits van Rhee; Lisette Stork-Sloots; Femke de Snoo; Pritish K Bhattacharyya; Durga Prasad Dash; Sena Zümrütçü; Martin H van Vliet; Parameswaran Hari; Ruben Niesvizky
Journal:  EJHaem       Date:  2021-05-11

5.  Prognostic and predictive performance of R-ISS with SKY92 in older patients with multiple myeloma: the HOVON-87/NMSG-18 trial.

Authors:  Rowan Kuiper; Sonja Zweegman; Mark van Duin; Martin H van Vliet; Erik H van Beers; Belinda Dumee; Michael Vermeulen; Jasper Koenders; Bronno van der Holt; Heleen Visser-Wisselaar; Markus Hansson; Annette W G van der Velden; H Berna Beverloo; Marian Stevens-Kroef; Mark-David Levin; Annemiek Broijl; Anders Waage; Pieter Sonneveld
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-12-22

6.  Phase II trial of single-agent panobinostat consolidation improves responses after sub-optimal transplant outcomes in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Sridurga Mithraprabhu; Anna Kalff; Kate H Gartlan; Ioanna Savvidou; Tiffany Khong; Malarmathy Ramachandran; Rachel E Cooke; Kathryn Bowen; Geoffrey R Hill; John Reynolds; Andrew Spencer
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 6.998

7.  MUKnine OPTIMUM protocol: a screening study to identify high-risk patients with multiple myeloma suitable for novel treatment approaches combined with a phase II study evaluating optimised combination of biological therapy in newly diagnosed high-risk multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukaemia.

Authors:  Sarah Brown; Debbie Sherratt; Matthew Jenner; Martin Kaiser; Samantha Hinsley; Louise Flanagan; Sadie Roberts; Katrina Walker; Andrew Hall; Guy Pratt; Christina Messiou
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Risk Stratification Before and During Treatment in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: From Clinical Trials to the Real-World Setting.

Authors:  Francesca Bonello; Lorenzo Cani; Mattia D'Agostino
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 9.  Gene Expression Profiling in Multiple Myeloma: Redefining the Paradigm of Risk-Adapted Treatment.

Authors:  Claudio Cerchione; Saad Z Usmani; A Keith Stewart; Martin Kaiser; Leo Rasche; Martin Kortüm; María-Victoria Mateos; Andrew Spencer; Pieter Sonneveld; Kenneth C Anderson
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  Multiple Myeloma Therapy: Emerging Trends and Challenges.

Authors:  Danai Dima; Dongxu Jiang; Divya Jyoti Singh; Metis Hasipek; Haikoo S Shah; Fauzia Ullah; Jack Khouri; Jaroslaw P Maciejewski; Babal K Jha
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 6.575

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.