ArticleBMC cancer2018
Improved outcome in patients following autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma in south eastern Norway 2001-2010: a retrospective, population based analysis.
Article in BMC cancer, 2018. 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.
- Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with multiple myeloma in South Tyrol: a retrospective single-center analysis.Annals of hematology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the advent of novel drugs improved overall survival in patients with multiple myeloma, including patients who received up-front autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), has been reported from several centers. Here we report on overall survival in a population-based cohort of patients receiving ASCT as first line treatment and in whom novel agents were an option for second and later lines of treatment.
methodsPatients with multiple myeloma ≤ 65 years of age who were considered for ASCT from 01.01.2001-31.06.2005 (period 1) and from 01.07.2005 until 31.12.2009 (period 2) at Oslo University Hospital (OUH) were identified. Relevant data were collected from the patients' medical records.
resultsAltogether, 293/355 patients received ASCT. In all, median OS was 82.9 months in patients ≤ 60 years of age and 59.0 months in patients 61-65 years. For patients ≤ 60 years of age median OS increased from 70.6 months to 87.7 months (p = 0. 22) and median survival after start of second line therapy increased from 34.5 months to 46.5 months (p = 0.015) between the two periods. For patients 61-65 years of age median OS increased from 57.3 months to 61.2 months (p = 0. 87) and median survival after start of second line therapy was practically unchanged (32.6 months vs. 33.1 months (p = 0.97) between the periods. In patients ≤ 60 years of age salvage ASCT was used in 34% of the patients while in patients 61-65 years of age salvage ASCT was used in 7.3% of the patients. The use of salvage ASCT and novel drugs, as well as the number of treatment lines, were higher in patients ≤ 60 years of age and increased during the study period.
conclusionIn patients ≤ 60 years of age an increased median OS of 17 months between the two periods were noted, but the difference failed to reach statistical significance. However, a statistically significant difference in median survival of 12 months after start of second line therapy was found in this age group, which may be explained by a more active second line treatment. In patients 61-65 years only a slight increase of survival, not statistically significant, was noted between the periods.
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.