Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28967896›Full record

ReviewBone marrow transplantation2018

Post-autologous transplant maintenance therapies in lymphoma: current state and future directions.

P A Riedell, M R Bishop

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Bone marrow transplantation, 2018. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. A new therapeutic approach in very refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020
    Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P A RiedellSection of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
M R BishopSection of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
University of Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disease relapse following high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains the principal cause of mortality in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphomas. In an effort to prevent post-ASCT relapse, a number of studies have evaluated the role of maintenance therapy with varying success. In diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, studies evaluating maintenance rituximab (MR) following ASCT failed to demonstrate improved outcomes. In follicular lymphoma, MR was associated with an improvement in PFS; however, no overall survival (OS) benefit was noted. Emerging data evaluating MR in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have demonstrated improvements in PFS, although a consistent improvement in OS has yet to be demonstrated. Given the aggressive and incurable nature of MCL, it is prudent for practitioners to weigh the risks and benefits of MR in the post-ASCT setting. Similarly, post-ASCT maintenance therapy with brentuximab vedotin in Hodgkin lymphoma, has led to improved PFS and may be considered in those with a high risk of relapse. Ongoing clinical studies evaluating a multitude of novel maintenance therapies are crucial to the efforts of further defining and optimizing the role of post-transplant maintenance therapy in lymphoma.

Indexed as

FemaleHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansLymphomaMaleTransplantation, AutologousTransplantation Conditioning

Identifiers

PMID28967896
OpenAlexW2764055350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.