ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023
Comparison of clinical characteristics, treatment efficacy and survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with single- versus multi-site extramedullary invasion.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to compare the clinical characteristics, treatment efficacy and survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with single- versus multi-site extramedullary invasion.
methodsA total of 90 extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMM) patients were included. We compared the characteristics, overall remission rates (ORRs) and survival among patients with single-site and multi-site invasions. Comparison was also done regarding extramedullary-bone-related (EM-B) and extramedullary-extraosseous (EM-E) multiple myeloma patients.
resultsPatients with multi-site invasion had higher LDH (179.0 U/L) than single-site invasion (P = 0.016). Significantly higher LDH was also showed in patients with EM-E (189.4 U/L) than EM-B (P = 0.025). The ORR of patients with single-site invasion (72.1%) was not significantly higher than multi-site invasion (68.2%) (P = 0.690). But the ORR of patients with EM-B was significantly higher than EM-E (78.2 vs. 56.3%, P = 0.031). Among patients with single-site invasion, the multivariate survival analysis showed that PI plus IMiD regimen significantly improved the PFS (P < 0.05). Among patients with multi-site invasion or with EM-B, the multivariate survival analysis confirmed the associations of rISS III with poor PFS and OS (P < 0.05). Among patients with EM-E, plasma cell percentage ≥ 20% was associated with significantly poor PFS and OS (P < 0.05).
conclusionrISS stage III was possibly associated with poor survival of EMM patients with multi-site invasion or with EM-B. Plasma cell percentage ≥ 20% was associated with poor survival of EMM patients with EM-E. Comparison should not only be done between single- and multi-site invasions, but also between EM-B and EM-E.
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.