Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30536028›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2019

[Diagnostic and therapeutic considerations on recurrence of multiple myeloma : A current overview].

K M Kortüm, H Einsele

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

K M KortümMedizinische Klinik 2, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Oberdürrbacher Str. 6, 97074, Würzburg, Deutschland. kortuem_m@ukw.de.
H EinseleMedizinische Klinik 2, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Oberdürrbacher Str. 6, 97074, Würzburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment of multiple myeloma remains in a state of profound change. Over the past decades both disease-free survival and overall survival have been significantly prolonged by the approval of new drugs; however, despite high response rates and achievement of deep responses to primary treatment, recurrence of the disease is still expected in nearly all patients treated. Fortunately, good treatment options for myeloma patients in relapse are also currently available and the possible combinations of approved substances are numerous. Patient-specific criteria, such as primary response, comorbidities and treatment-associated toxicity can thus be taken into account more frequently in the selection of a suitable treatment of recurrences; however, the lack of comparative studies of new substances and extensive interindividual disease heterogeneity continue to make it difficult to select the best treatment of recurrence in a specific case. Therefore, the treatment of recurrence of multiple myeloma, especially for patients with high-risk features, remains a clinical challenge. This review article deliberately dispenses with the commonly used combination of mere study results and a more practical approach should be taught for the rational planning of treatment for recurrent multiple myeloma. This includes new insights into tumor evolution and taking current developments in the drug treatment of multiple myeloma into account.

Indexed as

Drug ResistanceHumansImmunologic FactorsMultiple MyelomaNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProteasome InhibitorsRecurrenceImmunologic FactorsProteasome InhibitorsClonal evolutionDrug resistanceImmunomodulatorsProteasome inhibitorsRisk profile

Identifiers

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.