Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34758834›Full record

ReviewCancer cell international2021

Long-term outcomes of busulfan plus melphalan-based versus melphalan 200 mg/m

Fei Gao, Mei-Si Lin, Jie-Shu You, Min-Yue Zhang, Long Cheng, Ke Lin, Peng Zhao, Qi-Yan Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer cell international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Optimizing high dose melphalan.Blood reviews · 2024
    Review
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Fei Gao *State Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, Pharmacy School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Mei-Si Lin *State Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, Pharmacy School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Jie-Shu YouCollege of Pharmacy, Shenzhen Technology University, Shenzhen, 518118, Guangdong Province, China. youjieshu@sztu.edu.cn.
Min-Yue ZhangDivision of Hematology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200127, China. zhangminyue@connect.hku.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3393-215X
Long ChengDepartment of Cardiology, Gongli Hospital, Shanghai, 200135, China.
Ke LinSchool of Medical Information Engineering, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Peng ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, Pharmacy School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Qi-Yan ChenState Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, Pharmacy School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNRenji Hospital · CNSecond Military Medical University · CNShenzhen Technology University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81903811National Natural Science Foundation of China 81904272
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-dose melphalan (HDMEL, 200 mg/m

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database until July 31, 2021, to identify all eligible studies comparing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), optimal treatment response after auto-HSCT, duration of stem cell engraftment and incidence of toxic events between patients undergoing BUMEL-based and HDMEL conditioning regimens. Hazard ratio (HR), mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined to estimate outcomes applying RevMan 5.4 software. Publication biases were assessed by performing Egger's test and Begg's test by Stata 15 software.

resultsTen studies with a total of 2855 MM patients were covered in the current meta-analysis. The results of this study demonstrated that patients having received BUMEL-based regimen was correlated with longer PFS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67~0.89, P = 0.0002) but similar OS (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.92~1.26, P = 0.35) compared with those having received HDMEL. The differences of best treatment response after auto-HSCT and duration of neutrophil or platelet engraftment did not have statistical significance between the two groups of patients. With respect to adverse effects, the patients in BUMEL-based group were less frequently subject to gastrointestinal toxicity while the patients in HDMEL group less often experienced mucositis and infection. No significant difference was observed in hepatic toxicity between the two groups of patients.

conclusionsIn the present study, BUMEL-based conditioning was identified as a favorable regimen for a better PFS and equivalent OS as compared with HDMEL, which should be balanced against higher incidences of mucositis and infection. BUMEL-based conditioning is likely to act as an alternative strategy to more effectively improve auto-HSCT outcomes in MM.

Indexed as

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantationBusulfanMelphalanMeta-analysisMultiple myeloma

Identifiers

PMID34758834
PMCPMC8579671
OpenAlexW3211564546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.