Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31570781›Full record

ArticleBone marrow transplantation2020

Analysis of data collected in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Registry on a cohort of lymphoma patients receiving plerixafor.

Anna Sureda, Christian Chabannon, Tamás Masszi, David Pohlreich, Christof Scheid, Catherine Thieblemont, Björn E Wahlin, Ioanna Sakellari, Nigel Russell, Andrea Janikova and 11 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01362972 (Analysis of Data Collected in the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT01362972 completednot on this map

Analysis of Data Collected in the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Registry on a Cohort of Patients Receiving Plerixafor

TypeobservationalSponsorGenzyme, a Sanofi CompanyRan2011 to 2016Enrolled7,801ConditionsLymphoma, Multiple Myeloma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mobilization and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Collection in Poor Mobilizing Patients with Lymphoma: Final Results of the German OPTIMOB Study.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

21 authors at 18 institutions in 12 countries.

Anna SuredaInstitut Català d'Oncologia, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Barcelona, Spain. asureda@iconcologia.net.
Christian ChabannonInstitut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3755-4889
Tamás MassziSemmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
David PohlreichCharles University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Christof ScheidUniversity of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Catherine ThieblemontAPHP, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Service d'hémato-oncologie, Université Paris Diderot - and Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Björn E WahlinKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ioanna SakellariGeorge Papanicolaou General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8883-8208
Nigel RussellNottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Andrea JanikovaUniversity Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
Anna Dabrowska-IwanickaMaria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland.
Cyrille TouzeauCHU Nantes, Nantes, France.
Albert EsquirolHospital de la Santa Creu Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Esa JantunenUniversity of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
Steffie van der WerfEBMT Data Office, Leiden, Netherlands.
Paul BosmanEBMT Data Office, Leiden, Netherlands.
Ariane BoumendilEBMT Statistical Unit, Paris, France.
Qianying LiuSanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Marina CelanovicSanofi Genzyme, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Silvia MontotoSt Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Peter DregerUniversity of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · NLSanofi (United States) · USCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes · FRCharles University · CZDélégation Paris 7 · FREuropean Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · FRG. Papanikolaou General Hospital · GRHeidelberg University · DEHospital de Sant Pau · ESInstitut Català d'Oncologia · ESInstitut Paoli-Calmettes · FRKarolinska University Hospital · SESemmelweis University · HUSt Bartholomew's Hospital · GBThe Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology · PLUniversity Hospital Brno · CZUniversity of Cologne · DEUniversity of Eastern Finland · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plerixafor + granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is administered to patients with lymphoma who are poor mobilizers of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in Europe. This international, multicenter, non-interventional registry study (NCT01362972) evaluated long-term follow-up of patients with lymphoma who received plerixafor for HSC mobilization versus other mobilization methods. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between comparison groups. The following mobilization regimens were compared: G-CSF + plerixafor (G + P) versus G-CSF alone; G + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G + C); and G-CSF + plerixafor + chemotherapy (G + P + C) versus G + C. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR). Overall, 313/3749 (8.3%) eligible patients were mobilized with plerixafor-containing regimens. After propensity score matching, 70 versus 36 patients were matched in the G + P versus G-CSF alone cohort, 124 versus 124 in the G + P versus G + C cohort, and 130 versus 130 in the G + P + C versus G + C cohort. For both PFS and OS, the upper bound of confidence interval for the hazard ratio was >1.3 for all comparisons, implying that non-inferiority was not demonstrated. No major differences in PFS, OS, and CIR were observed between the plerixafor and comparison groups.

Indexed as

Heterocyclic CompoundsLymphomaBenzylaminesBone MarrowCyclamsEuropeHematopoietic Stem Cell MobilizationHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRegistriesBenzylaminesCyclamsHeterocyclic Compoundsplerixafor

Identifiers

PMID31570781
PMCPMC7051902
OpenAlexW2976428882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.