ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2022
Regional differences in treatment and outcome for myeloma patients in Sweden: A population based Swedish myeloma register study.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2022. 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.
- Regional differences in treatment and outcome for myeloma patients in Sweden: A population based Swedish myeloma register study.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Article
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
backgroundWe wanted to evaluate if health care for multiple myeloma (MM) patients is equal in different regions of Sweden.
aimTo study differences in survival for MM depending on health care region and early use of modern treatment. METHODS AND
resultsData from the Swedish Myeloma Register from patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2017 was used. Cohorts were defined by the six healthcare regions (labeled A-F) in Sweden and modern initial treatment was defined as including certain drug combinations. To adjust for time to treatment bias, survival analyses were performed also for patients alive 6 months after diagnosis. In all treated MM patients (n = 5326), we observed a superior overall survival (OS) for region A compared to all other regions (p < .01 for all respectively). After adjusting for time to treatment there was also a superior survival in the region with highest use of modern initial treatment (region A) compared to the regions defined in the study as having intermediate and low use (p < .01 for both). In patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) a superior survival was observed for region A compared to all regions besides region B. Similar results were seen when adjusting for a time to treatment bias. In patients not receiving ASCT, 75 years or older and adjusted for time to treatment bias, a difference was noted only between region A and E (log rank p = .04, HR 1.2, CI 1.00-1.44, p = .06). In multivariate analyses including age, international staging system stage and time period of diagnosis, differences in survival remained for patients receiving ASCT between region A versus C, D, E and F (p = .01, p < .01, p < .01, p = .03).
conclusionWe observed a superior survival in region A for patients receiving ASCT. Explanations may be higher usage of modern initial treatment or regional residual confounding. For patients not receiving ASCT, 75 years or older, differences in survival could be adjusted for.
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.