SynthesisAdvances in therapy2022
Triplet RVd Induction for Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction and Validation of a Progression-Free Survival Prediction Model for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients With 1q21 Gain/Amplification.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Interventions for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: An Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical & experimental oncology · 2025Article
- Analysis of pharmacotherapeutic approaches for multiple myeloma and correlated renal and pulmonary impairments: a retrospective real-world registry study in the Greater Gulf Region (REPAIR Study).Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Quadruplet regimen for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is effective in the standard-risk subgroup but not in the high-risk subgroup.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has become standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This study aimed to determine the efficacy of RVd as induction therapy in terms of response rates and survival outcomes of transplant-eligible patients with NDMM.
methodsThe databases of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until February 1, 2021. Both randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-RCTs from the available literature were extracted as one-arm data to assess the efficacy of each triplet regimen for the target patients in terms of response rates and survival rates for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. Data was summarized as estimated pooled value regarding each evaluated index. Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods.
resultsThe findings of 71 studies published from 2008 to 2020 were analyzed. For RVd induction, the overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, and complete response or better (≥ CR) rate after induction were 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.95), 0.23 (95% CI 0.17-0.29), and 0.56 (95% CI 0.51-0.61), respectively. Indirect comparisons in efficacy were made between RVd and other traditional triplet regimens. RVd induction led to a better ≥ CR rate than bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) regimen in both postinduction and post-ASCT phase, ≥ CR rate 0.11 (95% CI 0.08-0.15) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.12-0.32), respectively. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate and 3-year OS rate of RVd regimen were longer than that of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98) vs 0.71 (95% CI 0.61-0.80), and 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-0.98) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.75), respectively.
conclusionsThe RVd induction demonstrated confident response rates and survival benefits for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM.
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.