ArticleTherapeutic advances in hematology2021
Busulfan plus melphalan
Article in Therapeutic advances in hematology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Busulfan plus melphalan versus high-dose melphalan as a conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma with high-risk features (KMM 2015).Annals of hematology · 2023Article
- Long-term outcomes of busulfan plus melphalan-based versus melphalan 200 mg/mCancer cell international · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh dose melphalan (HDMEL) is considered the standard conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Recent studies showed superiority of busulfan plus melphalan (BUMEL) compared to HDMEL as a conditioning regimen. We compared the efficacy of HDMEL and BUMEL in newly diagnosed Asian MM patients, who are often underrepresented.
methodsThis is a single-center, retrospective study including MM patients who underwent ASCT after bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) triplet induction chemotherapy between January 2015 and August 2019.
resultIn the end, 79 patients in the HDMEL group were compared to 31 patients in the BUMEL group. There were no differences between the two groups with regards to sex, age at ASCT, risk group, and stage. The HDMEL group showed better response to pre-transplant VTD compared to BUMEL, but after ASCT the BUMEL group showed better overall response. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), although BUMEL showed trends towards better PFS regardless of pre-transplant status and age, the difference did not reach statistical significance. The BUMEL group more often experienced mucositis related to chemotherapy, but there was no difference between the two groups with regards to hospitalization days, cell engraftment, and infection rates.
conclusionBUMEL conditioning deserves attention as the alternative option to HDMEL for newly diagnosed MM patients, even in the era of triplet induction chemotherapy. Specifically, patients achieving very good partial response (VGPR) or better response with triplet induction chemotherapy might benefit the most from BUMEL conditioning. Tailored conditioning regimen, based on patient's response to induction chemotherapy and co-morbidities, can lead to better treatment outcomes.
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.