ArticleBlood research2013
The impact of novel therapeutic agents before and after frontline autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma.
Article in Blood research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNovel agents (NAs) such as thalidomide and bortezomib have been administered in combination with autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) to effectively treat multiple myeloma (MM). However, whether NAs perform better as induction treatments prior to transplantation, or as post-transplant maintenance therapies remains unclear.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 106 consecutive patients with MM who underwent ASCT within 1 year of diagnosis as first-line therapy.
resultsEighty-seven (82.1%) patients received NAs before ASCT, whereas 68 (64.2%) received NAs after ASCT. NAs were administered to each patient as follows: before ASCT alone (N=29, 27.4%), after ASCT alone (N=10, 9.4%) or both before and after ASCT (N=58, 54.7%). High-quality rates before and after ASCT were significantly higher for patients who received NAs as induction treatment compared to those who did not receive pre-transplant NAs. At a median follow-up of 37.9 months, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 42.8% and 70.2%, respectively. The PFS and OS were significantly higher in patients with NAs as post-transplant maintenance treatment (P=0.03 and P=0.04, respectively), but not in those with NAs as pre-transplant induction treatment. The PFS of patients with NAs before and after ASCT was higher than that of the patients with NAs as induction therapy alone (P=0.05). Age, serum β2-microglobulin level, complete response after ASCT, and NA use post-ASCT independently predicted survival outcomes.
conclusionThese findings suggest that integration of NAs post-ASCT could benefit patients with MM undergoing ASCT. Induction therapy using NAs also improves high-quality response rates before and after ASCT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.