Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31077067›Full record

ReviewCurrent hematologic malignancy reports2019

Expert Panel Consensus Statement for Proper Evaluation of First Relapse in Multiple Myeloma.

M Offidani, M Boccadoro, F Di Raimondo, M T Petrucci, P Tosi, M Cavo

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current hematologic malignancy reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Approaches To Managing Relapsed Myeloma: Switching Drug Class or Retreatment With Same Drug Class?Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2025
    Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

M OffidaniClinica di Ematologia, A.O.U. Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, via Conca, 71, 60126, Ancona, Italy. massimo.offidani@ospedaliriuniti.marche.it.
M BoccadoroMyeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy.
F Di RaimondoDivision of Hematology, AOU Policlinico-OVE, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
M T PetrucciDepartment of Cellular Biotechnologies and Hematology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
P TosiHematology Unit, Infermi Hospital Rimini, Rimini, Italy.
M CavoInstitute of Hematology Seragnoli, DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino · ITOspedale Infermi di Rimini · ITOspedali Riuniti di Ancona · ITPoliclinico Universitario di Catania · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewA working group of six expert physicians convened to assess the spectrum of multiple myeloma relapse presentations, discussed the features that can define the disease as aggressive and not aggressive, and established whether this information could help in selecting treatment together with the characteristics of disease and of patients and type of prior therapy. RECENT

findingsThe working group agreed that relapse should be distinguished between biochemical and clinical according to IMWG. Moreover, the expert panel defined "aggressive disease" as a clinical condition that requires therapy able to induce a rapid and as deep as possible response to release symptoms and to avoid impending danger of new events. According to this definition, relapse was considered aggressive if it presents with at least one of the following features: doubling of M protein rate over 2 months, renal insufficiency, hypercalcemia, extramedullary disease, elevated LDH, high plasma cell proliferative index, presence of plasma cells in peripheral blood, or skeletal-related complications. Moreover, the panel agreed that this classification can be useful to choose therapy in first relapse together with other patient, disease, and prior therapy characteristics. So, this item was included in a new therapeutic algorithm. The treatment choice in MM at relapse is wider than in the past with the availability of many new therapeutic regimens leading to increased diversity of approaches and relevant risk of inappropriate treatment decisions. A practical classification of relapses into aggressive or non-aggressive, included in a decisional algorithm on MM management at first relapse, could help to make the appropriate treatment decisions.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansMaleMultiple MyelomaRecurrenceAggressive myelomaManagement of relapsed myelomaMultiple myelomaRefractory plasma cell malignancy

Identifiers

PMID31077067
OpenAlexW2943867892

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.