ArticleChinese medical journal2019
Comparison of outcomes after human leukocyte antigen-matched and haploidentical hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and survival outcome of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: meta-analysis in the recent 10 years.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- [Clinical analysis of 14 patients aged ≤ 50 years with high-risk multiple myeloma treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2024Article
- Review
- Current Use of Total Body Irradiation in Haploidentical Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Review
- Successful Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Extramedullary Multiple Myeloma With Anti-BCMA CAR-T Cell Therapy Followed by Haploidentical Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Case Report and a Review of the Contemporary Literature.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllogeneic stem-cell transplantation (SCT) is a well-established immunotherapeutic strategy for multiple myeloma (MM) with a potent and often sustained graft-vs.-myeloma effect. This multicenter investigation aimed to analyze the complications and survival of haploidentical SCT in patients with MM, and compare the main outcomes with matched-related donors (MRDs).
methodsHaploidentical and MRD SCT was identified from a cohort of 97 patients with MM who received a myeloablative transplantation in 13 hospitals from May 2001 to December 2017. A matched-pair analysis was designed. For each haplo recipient, the recipients were randomly selected from the MRD group and were matched according to the following criteria: year of the hematopoietic SCT (±2 years), disease status at transplantation, and the length of follow-up.
resultsSeventy cases received MRD and 27 received haploidentical transplantation. The two groups showed no significant differences regarding age, gender, cytogenetic risk, and diagnostic stage. The cumulative incidences of non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 1 and 3 years based on donor type were 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.90-30.10%) and 24.2% (95% CI, 13.81-34.59%) for the MRD group and 16.80% (95% CI, 1.71-31.89%) and 28.70% (95% CI, 8.71-48.69%) for the haplo group, respectively. Cumulative incidence of NRM did not differ significantly between the two groups (χ = 0.031, P = 0.861). The cumulative incidences of progression-free survival (PFS) and 1 year and 3 years by type of donors were 59.8% (95% CI, 48.24-71.36%) and 45.4% (95% CI, 33.44-57.36%), and 65.6% (95% CI, 47.18-84.02%) and 26.8% (95% CI, 7.59-46. 01%) for MRD and haploidentical donor, respectively. Cumulative incidence of PFS did not differ significantly between the two groups (χ = 0.182, P = 0.670). In multivariate analyses, no statistically significant differences were observed between haploidentical and MRD for relapse, NRM, PFS, and overall survival. There were no statistically differences on main outcomes after haploidentical and MRD.
conclusionHaploidentical SCT could be performed safely and feasibly for patients with MM in need.
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.