Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27540299›Full record

ReviewOncoTargets and therapy2016

Salvage therapies in relapsed and/or refractory myeloma: what is current and what is the future?

Nishitha Thumallapally, Hana Yu, Divya Asti, Adarsh Vennepureddy, Terenig Terjanian

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in OncoTargets and therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nishitha ThumallapallyDepartment of Internal Medicine.
Hana YuDepartment of Internal Medicine.
Divya AstiDepartment of Internal Medicine.
Adarsh VennepureddyDepartment of Internal Medicine.
Terenig TerjanianDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Staten Island University Hospital, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment landscape for multiple myeloma (MM) is evolving with our understanding of its pathophysiology. However, given the inevitable cohort heterogeneity in salvage therapy, response to treatment and overall prognoses tend to vary widely, making meaningful conclusions about treatment efficacy difficult to derive. Despite the hurdles in current research, progress is underway toward more targeted therapeutic approaches. Several new drugs with novel mechanism of action and less toxic profile have been developed in the past decade, with the potential for use as single agents or in synergy with other treatment modalities in MM therapy. As our discovery of these emerging therapies progresses, so too does our need to reshape our knowledge on knowing how to apply them. This review highlights some of the recent landmark changes in MM management with specific emphasis on salvage drugs available for relapsed and refractory MM and also discusses some of the upcoming cutting-edge therapies that are currently in various stages of clinical development.

Indexed as

multiple myelomanovel drugsrelapsed and refractory myelomasalvage chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID27540299
PMCPMC4981158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.