ReviewHematology reports2023
Survival in Patients with Relapsed-Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Indirect Comparison of Six New Treatments.
Review in Hematology reports, 2023. 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.
- Review
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, new treatments have been studied for relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), including two CAR-T products and a variety of non-CAR-T agents. Since direct comparisons between these innovative treatments are not available, indirect comparisons can be of interest. Reconstruction of individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier graphs (e.g., according to the Shiny method) has been the subject of numerous reports that have fully validated their performance. In the present systematic review, we evaluated six treatments proposed for RRMM, including two CAR-T products (ciltacabtagene autoleucel and idecabtagene vicleucel) and four treatments not based on a CAR-T (melflufen plus dexamethasone, isatuximab plus dexamethasone, selinexor, and belantamab). The endpoint was overall survival (OS). Our results showed statistically significant differences in OS across these treatments. In particular, ciltacabtagene autoleucel showed better OS than idecabtagene vicleucel. As regards non-CAR-T treatments, the ranking in OS was headed by isatuximab plus dexamethasone, followed by belantamab, selinexor, and melflufen plus dexamethasone. In conclusion, while the Shiny method has confirmed its validity in reconstructing individual patient data, our indirect comparisons have offered some original clues to interpret the results of OS published in these studies.
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.