NcXHF

BHUTANI, LANDGREN, AND USMANI
15. Katzmann JA, Clark R, Kyle RA, et al. Suppression of uninvolved immunoglobulins
defıned by heavy/light chain pair suppression is a risk
factor for progression of MGUS. Leukemia. 2013;27:208-212.
16. Koulieris E, Panayiotidis P, Harding SJ, et al. Ratio of involved/uninvolved
immunoglobulin quantifıcation by Hevylite assay: clinical and
prognostic impact in multiple myeloma. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2012;1:9.
17. Tricot G, Sawyer JR, Jagannath S, et al. Unique role of cytogenetics in the
prognosis of patients with myeloma receiving high-dose therapy and
autotransplants. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2659-2666.
18. Chang H, Qi C, Yi QL, et al. p53 gene deletion detected by fluorescence
in situ hybridization is an adverse prognostic factor for patients with
multiple myeloma following autologous stem cell transplantation.
Blood. 2005;105:358-360.
19. Fonseca R, Bergsagel PL, Drach J, et al. International Myeloma Working
Group molecular classifıcation of multiple myeloma: spotlight review.
Leukemia. 2009;23:2210-2221.
20. Avet-Loiseau H, Malard F, Campion L, et al. Translocation t(14;16) and
multiple myeloma: is it really an independent prognostic factor? Blood.
2011;117:2009-2011.
21. Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Moreau P, et al. Genetic abnormalities and
survival in multiple myeloma: the experience of the Intergroupe Francophone
du Myélome. Blood. 2007;109:3489-3495.
22. Munshi NC, Anderson KC, Bergsagel PL, et al. Consensus recommendations
for risk stratifıcation in multiple myeloma: report of the International
Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2. Blood. 2011;117:
4696-4700.
23. Boyd KD, Ross FM, Chiecchio L, et al. 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. Leukemia.
2012;26:349-355.
24. Hanamura I, Stewart JP, Huang Y, et al. Frequent gain of chromosome
band 1q21 in plasma-cell dyscrasias detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization:
incidence increases from MGUS to relapsed myeloma and
is related to prognosis and disease progression following tandem stemcell
transplantation. Blood. 2006;108:1724-1732.
25. Zojer N, Königsberg R, Ackermann J, et al. Deletion of 13q14 remains
an independent adverse prognostic variable in multiple myeloma despite
its frequent detection by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Blood. 2000;95:1925-1930.
26. Boyd KD, Ross FM, Walker BA, et al. Mapping of chromosome 1p deletions
in myeloma identifıes FAM46C at 1p12 and CDKN2C at 1p32.3
as being genes in regions associated with adverse survival. Clin Cancer
Res. 2011;17:7776-7784.
27. Avet-Loiseau H, Leleu X, Roussel M, et al. Bortezomib plus dexamethasone
induction improves outcome of patients with t(4;14) myeloma
but not outcome of patients with del(17p). J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4630-
4634.
28. Barlogie B, Anaissie E, van Rhee F, et al. Incorporating bortezomib into
upfront treatment for multiple myeloma: early results of total therapy 3.
Br J Haematol. 2007;138:176-185.
29. Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, et al. International staging system
for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3412-3420.
30. Avet-Loiseau H, Durie BG, Cavo M, et al. Combining fluorescent in situ
hybridization data with ISS staging improves risk assessment in myeloma:
an International Myeloma Working Group collaborative project.
Leukemia. 2013;27:711-717.
31. Shaughnessy JD Jr, Zhan F, Burington BE, et al. A validated gene expression
model of high-risk multiple myeloma is defıned by deregulated expression
of genes mapping to chromosome 1. Blood. 2007;109:2276-
2284.
32. Kuiper R, Broyl A, de Knegt Y, et al. A gene expression signature for
high-risk multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2012;26:2406-2413.
33. Decaux O, Lodé L, Magrangeas F, et al. Prediction of survival in multiple
myeloma based on gene expression profıles reveals cell cycle and chromosomal
instability signatures in high-risk patients and hyperdiploid
signatures in low-risk patients: a study of the Intergroupe Francophone
du Myélome. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4798-4805.
34. Dickens NJ, Walker BA, Leone PE, et al. Homozygous deletion mapping
in myeloma samples identifıes genes and an expression signature relevant
to pathogenesis and outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1856-1864.
35. Rawstron AC, Orfao A, Beksac M, et al. Report of the European Myeloma
Network on multiparametric flow cytometry in multiple myeloma
and related disorders. Haematologica. 2008;93:431-438.
36. Paiva B, Gutiérrez NC, Rosiñol L, et al. High-risk cytogenetics and persistent
minimal residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry predict
unsustained complete response after autologous stem cell
transplantation in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2012;119:687-691.
37. Rawstron AC, Child JA, de Tute RM, et al. Minimal residual disease
assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry in multiple myeloma: impact
on outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study
[published correction appears in J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:4383]. J Clin Oncol.
2013;31:2540-2547.
38. Flanders A, Stetler-Stevenson M, Landgren O. Minimal residual disease
testing in multiple myeloma by flow cytometry: major heterogeneity.
Blood. 2013;122:1088-1089.
39. Puig N, Sarasquete ME, Balanzategui A, et al. Critical evaluation of ASO
RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A
comparative analysis with flow cytometry. Leukemia. 2014;28:391-397.
40. Korthals M, Sehnke N, Kronenwett R, et al. The level of minimal residual
disease in the bone marrow of patients with multiple myeloma before
high-dose therapy and autologous blood stem cell transplantation
is an independent predictive parameter. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2012;18:423-431.
41. Martinez-Lopez J, Lahuerta JJ, Pepin F, et al. Prognostic value of deep
sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple
myeloma. Blood. 2014;123:3073-3079.
42. Mailankody S, Korde N, Lesokhin AM, et al. Minimal residual disease in
multiple myeloma: bringing the bench to the bedside. Nat Rev Clin Oncol.
Epub 2015 Jan 27.
43. Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL, et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron
emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and
prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;114:2068-2076.
44. Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F
FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated
with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood. 2011;118:5989-5995.
45. Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in
multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol.
2007;25:1121-1128.
46. Usmani SZ, Mitchell A, Waheed S, et al. Prognostic implications of serial
18-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography in multiple myeloma
treated with total therapy 3. Blood. 2013;121:1819-1823.
47. Okasaki M, Kubota K, Minamimoto R, et al. Comparison of 11C-4thiothymidine,
11C-methionine, and F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of
active lesions of multiple myeloma. Ann Nucl Med. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
48. Patel CG, Yee AJ, Scullen TA, et al. Biomarkers of bone remodeling in
multiple myeloma patients to tailor bisphosphonate therapy. Clin Cancer
Res. 2014;20:3955-3961.
49. Terpos E, Dimopoulos MA, Sezer O, et al. The use of biochemical markers
of bone remodeling in multiple myeloma: a report of the International
Myeloma Working Group. Leukemia. 2010;24:1700-1712.
50. Corso A, Arcaini L, Mangiacavalli S, et al. Biochemical markers of bone
disease in asymptomatic early stage multiple myeloma. A study on their
role in identifying high risk patients. Haematologica. 2001;86:394-398.
51. Jakob C, Zavrski I, Heider U, et al. Bone resorption parameters
e502
2015 ASCO EDUCATIONAL BOOK | asco.org/edbook