ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023
Comparisons of efficacy between frontline treatment with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone and lenalidomide-dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a multicenter real-world based registry report, CAREMM-2102 study.
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 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) and lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) remain the standard treatments for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). This study aimed to compare real-world benefits between the two regimens. We also were interested in exploring efficacy according to subsequent therapy following VMP or Rd.
methodsA total of 559 NDMM patients treated with VMP (n = 443, 79.2%) or Rd (n = 116, 20.8%) was recruited retrospectively from a multicenter database.
resultsRd provided more benefits than VMP-overall response rate: 92.2 vs. 81.8%, p = 0.018; median progression-free survival (PFS): 20.0 vs. 14.5 months, p <0.001; second PFS (PFS2): 43.9 vs. 36.9 months, p = 0.012; overall survival (OS): 100.1 vs. 85.0 months, p = 0.017. Multivariable analysis revealed significant benefits of Rd over VMP, with hazard ratios of 0.722, 0.627, and 0.586 for PFS, PFS2, and OS, respectively. In propensity score-matched cohorts with matched VMP (n = 201) and Rd (n = 67) arms to balance baseline characteristics, Rd still showed significantly better outcomes for PFS, PFS2, and OS than VMP. Following VMP failure, triplet therapy showed significant benefits for response and PFS2; after Rd failure, PFS2 with carfilzomib-dexamethasone was significantly better than bortezomib-based doublet treatment.
conclusionThese real-world findings may assist with better selection between VMP and Rd as well as subsequent therapy for 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.