What does this research mean for the field?

Achievement of serologic undetectability using standard laboratory assays is associated with superior overall and progression-free survival in multiple myeloma patients, serving as a viable non-invasive alternative to bone marrow-based MRD evaluations. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate whether longitudinal follow-up relying exclusively on routine serologic monitoring can predict survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma.

September 5, 2026HematologyOpen Access

Serologic follow-up in patients with multiple myeloma without repeated bone marrow studies: a single-institution experience

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

LALidia Joanna Alberto‐López OMOscar Emigdio Melchor-Melo MGMiguel Ángel Gómez-Cabrera

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Retrospective study demonstrates that serologic undetectability predicts superior survival in multiple myeloma, highlighting noninvasive blood tests as an alternative to repeated bone marrow exams.

Key Points

To evaluate whether longitudinal follow-up relying exclusively on routine serologic monitoring can predict survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma.
Retrospective single-center study evaluating 88 consecutive patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma between 1999 and 2024.
Monitored patients with serial serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP), immunofixation (IF), and serum free light chain (sFLC) assays, defining complete serologic undetectability as negative SPEP/IF with a normal κ/λ ratio.
Estimated overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using Kaplan–Meier methods, log-rank tests, and univariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for guarantee-time bias.
Serologic undetectability was achieved in 33.0% (29/88) of patients, while 59.1% (52/88) achieved disappearance of the monoclonal band on SPEP/IF.
Achievement of serologic undetectability significantly reduced the risk of death (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19–0.91; p=0.0483) and prolonged progression-free survival (HR 0.195, 95% CI 0.091–0.418; p=0.0028).

Cite This Study

Alberto‐López et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9bd3c76b95aff0620eaeb8 https://doi.org/10.1080/16078454.2026.2727801

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 5, 2026HematologyOpen Access

Serologic follow-up in patients with multiple myeloma without repeated bone marrow studies: a single-institution experience

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

LALidia Joanna Alberto‐López OMOscar Emigdio Melchor-Melo MGMiguel Ángel Gómez-Cabrera

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Retrospective study demonstrates that serologic undetectability predicts superior survival in multiple myeloma, highlighting noninvasive blood tests as an alternative to repeated bone marrow exams.

Key Points

To evaluate whether longitudinal follow-up relying exclusively on routine serologic monitoring can predict survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma.
Retrospective single-center study evaluating 88 consecutive patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma between 1999 and 2024.
Monitored patients with serial serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP), immunofixation (IF), and serum free light chain (sFLC) assays, defining complete serologic undetectability as negative SPEP/IF with a normal κ/λ ratio.
Estimated overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using Kaplan–Meier methods, log-rank tests, and univariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for guarantee-time bias.
Serologic undetectability was achieved in 33.0% (29/88) of patients, while 59.1% (52/88) achieved disappearance of the monoclonal band on SPEP/IF.
Achievement of serologic undetectability significantly reduced the risk of death (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19–0.91; p=0.0483) and prolonged progression-free survival (HR 0.195, 95% CI 0.091–0.418; p=0.0028).

Cite This Study

Alberto‐López et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9bd3c76b95aff0620eaeb8 https://doi.org/10.1080/16078454.2026.2727801

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark