Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30098165›Full record

SynthesisJAMA oncology2018

Maintenance Treatment and Survival in Patients With Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Francesca Gay, Graham Jackson, Laura Rosiñol, Sarah A Holstein, Philippe Moreau, Stefano Spada, Faith Davies, Juan José Lahuerta, Xavier Leleu, Sara Bringhen and 21 more

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT04217967 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

A Multicenter, Open-label, Prospective Study of Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Ixazomib in Combination With Lenalidomide for Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

TypeinterventionalSponsorPeking Union Medical College HospitalRan2019 to 2024Enrolled211ConditionsMultiple MyelomaArmsIxazomib, Lenalidomide
NCT05349227 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Comprehensive Outcomes for After Cancer Health (COACH): the Feasibility and Impact of an MHealth Augmented Coaching Program for Self-Management in Cancer Survivors

TypeinterventionalSponsorPack HealthRan2022 to 2027Enrolled625ConditionsOvarian Cancer, Breast Cancer, Lung Cancer, Gastric CancerArmsDigital Health Coaching Program, Fitbit
NCT05541978 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Thrombosis in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: a Clinical Audit of Intermediate Dose Low Molecular Weight Heparin

TypeobservationalSponsorCatalina CodreanuRan2022 to 2023Enrolled140ConditionsMultiple Myeloma, Venous Thromboembolism, Arterial ThromboembolismArmsMultiple myeloma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Autologous-allogeneicHaematologica · 2024
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Maintenance treatment and survival in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphoma in the immunochemotherapy era: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

31 authors at 20 institutions in 10 countries.

Francesca GayMyeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Graham JacksonNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Trust, United Kingdom.
Laura RosiñolHematology Department, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Sarah A HolsteinDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
Philippe MoreauHematology Department, University Hospital Hôtel-Dieu, Nantes, France.
Stefano SpadaMyeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Faith DaviesThe Myeloma Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
Juan José LahuertaHospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain. PETHEMA/Grupo Español de Mieloma.
Xavier LeleuHématologie and Inserm CIC 1082, Poitiers, France.
Sara BringhenMyeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Andrea EvangelistaUnit of Clinical Epidemiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino and CPO Piemonte, Torino, Italy.
Cyrille HulinService d'Hématologie, Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, CHU Bordeaux, 33600 Pessac, France.
Ugo PanzaniMyeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
David A CairnsClinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Francesco Di RaimondoDivision of Hematology, AOU Policlinico-OVE, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Margaret MacroInstitut d'Hématologie de Basse Normandie, University Hospital of Caen, Côte de Nacre, 14033 Caen Cedex 9, France.
Anna Marina LiberatiUniversità degli Studi di Perugia, Struttura Complessa Universitaria Oncoematologia - Azienda Ospedaliera Santa Maria di Terni, Italy.
Charlotte PawlynThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Massimo OffidaniClinica di Ematologia, AOU Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Andrew SpencerDepartment of Haematology, Alfred Health-Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Roman HájekDepartment of Haematooncology, University Hospital Ostrava, Czech Republic and Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Evangelos TerposDepartment of Clinical Therapeutics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Gareth J MorganThe Myeloma Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
Joan BladéHematology Department, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Pieter SonneveldDepartment of Hematology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jesús San-MiguelClínica Universidad de Navarra-CIMA, IDISNA, CIBERONC, Pamplona, Spain.
Philip L McCarthyBlood and Marrow Transplant Program, Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, State University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Heinz LudwigWilhelminen Cancer Research Institute, Vienna, Austria.
Mario BoccadoroMyeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Maria-Victoria MateosUniversity Hospital of Salamanca-Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Michel AttalDepartment of Hematology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino · ITUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · USAlfred Health · AUClinica Universidad de Navarra · ESConsorci Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer · ESErasmus MC · NLHôpital Cardiologique du Haut-Lévêque · FRHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESInserm · FRInstitute of Cancer Research · GBInstituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca · ESInstitut universitaire du cancer de Toulouse Oncopole · FRNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRNewcastle upon Tyne Hospital · GBOspedali Riuniti di Ancona · ITPiedmont Reference Center for Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention · ITUniversité de Caen Normandie · FRUniversity Hospital Ostrava · CZUniversity of Catania · ITUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Several trials demonstrated the impact of novel agent-based maintenance in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but there is no current evidence demonstrating the superiority of one regimen over the other, owing to the lack of direct/indirect comparisons. Objective: To analyze and compare the effectiveness of different maintenance regimens in NDMM via a network meta-analysis. Data Sources: We performed 2 independent searches in PubMed and Cochrane databases, and then we identified all the records registered after 1999 and on or before November 20, 2017. Study Selection: By blinded review, we identified prospective phase 3 randomized trials evaluating novel agent-based maintenance in patients with NDMM; the included studies compared at least 2 maintenance approaches; comparators included placebo and no maintenance. From 364 screened records, 11 studies were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: We followed (independent extraction) the guidelines provided by the PRISMA Report and the EQUATOR Network. The evidence was synthesized using a network meta-analysis (NMA). To allow comparison of all treatments, no maintenance was selected as common comparator and the effect of placebo was assumed to be the same as no treatment. The best option was identified by a Bayesian consistency model based on hazard ratio (HR), 95% credible interval (CrI), probability of being the best treatment (PbBT), and median ranking distribution (MedR). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Eleven trials and 8 treatments including a total of 5073 participants were included. By PFS analysis, lenalidomide-based regimens (lenalidomide-prednisone, lenalidomide alone) were identified as the most effective options (HR, 0.39 [95% CrI, 0.28-0.53] and 0.47 [95% CrI, 0.39-0.55], respectively; MedR, 1 and 2; overall PbBT, 74%). Four treatments (thalidomide-interferon, thalidomide-bortezomib, bortezomib-prednisone, thalidomide alone) showed an HR in favor of maintenance. By OS analysis, lenalidomide alone was identified as the best option (HR, 0.76; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.16; MedR, 2; PbBT, 38%), followed by bortezomib-thalidomide and bortezomib-prednisone. Similar features were noticed in the restricted network including transplant trials, in the sensitivity analysis, and in most of the prognostic subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on PFS and OS results of this NMA, lenalidomide maintenance appears to be the best treatment option, by synthesizing the available evidence of novel agent-based maintenance in the past 20 years.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDisease-Free SurvivalLenalidomideMaintenance ChemotherapyMultiple MyelomaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicLenalidomide

Identifiers

PMID30098165
PMCPMC6233774
OpenAlexW2885454329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.