Trial reportWorld journal of surgical oncology2015
Analysis of clinical features, treatment response, and prognosis among 61 elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: a single-center report.
Trial report in World journal of surgical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of clinical characteristics, treatment response, and prognosis among 67 patients with anaplastic multiple myeloma.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- A systematic review on the epidemiology and treatment options of multiple Myeloma in Asia.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Real-World Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Chinese Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Single-Center Experience.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018Article
- Analysis of the Metabolic Characteristics of Serum Samples in Patients With Multiple Myeloma.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe identified the clinical features of 61 cases of multiple myeloma (MM) patients over 65 years and analyzed the treatment and prognosis of the era of new drugs in elderly patients.
methodsWe identified 61 newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma (NDMM) among elderly Chinese patients more than 65 years old diagnosed from 2006 to 2012.
resultsOf the 205 consecutive MM patients whom we reviewed, 61 (29.76%) cases were NDMM patients aged more than 65 years and the others were younger than 65 years old. Among them, 40 (65.6%) cases were in end-stage (ISS stage III); meanwhile, 19 (31.2%) cases of them had MM with extramedullary plasmacytoma (EMP), observed in 42.1% patients at diagnosis, and the top three incidence of position were spinal canal, pleural, and soft tissue. In the whole column, the median follow-up was 38 months and median age was 72.5 years. Patients received bortezomib- or thalidomide-containing regimens as initial therapy. Comparing the two treatment groups, the complete remission (CR)/near-complete remission (nCR) rate was significantly higher in the bortezomib-containing regimens (61.5 vs.18.18%, P=0.001), no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients of age over 75 years had shorter OS than those of age over 65 years (49 vs. 24 months, P=0.001). The patients with EMP had shorter OS than those without EMP in two age groups (32 vs. 42 and 15 vs. 24 months, P=0.017 and 0.024, respectively).
conclusionsThe results highlight that patients over 75 years and MM with EMP have a poorer outcome. While the CR rate is higher in bortezomib-containing regimens, no significant improvement is noted in respect to the survival outcomes; also, it cannot overcome the negative influence on survival of age and MM with EMP in elderly patients.
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.