ArticleAnnals of hematology2023
Management and outcome of 500 multiple myeloma patients treated for first relapse outside clinical studies.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment options for multiple myeloma (MM) at 1st relapse are expanding. The current study compared common 2nd line regimens administered in a real-world setting. MM patients registered in Maccabi health care services and treated with second line therapy during 2014-2020 were evaluated, analyzing factors affecting time to third line therapy (TT3T). The study included 500 MM patients, previously treated with proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based induction. Median age at second line treatment was 68.5 years (IQR: 61.6-76.4). Most patients received a triplet based induction composed of PI (n = 471, 94.2%), with (n = 71) or without IMID (n = 400), followed by second line treatment composed of lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD) (n = 225, 45%) or lenalidomide-dexamethasone-daratumumab (RD-Dara (n = 104, 20.8%)). Multivariable analysis confirmed treatment type (RD-Dara vs. IMID) to be associated with a lower risk to progress to third line therapy; (HR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.86, p = 0.012). Within a median follow-up period of 22.5 months (intraquartile range 11.1-39.4 m), median TT3T was not reached in patients receiving RD-Dara vs. 32.4 months (95% CI 18.0-46.8 m) with IMID, 18 months (95% CI 10.4-25.6 m) with IMID-PI and 12.1 months (95% CI 5.6-18.7 m) with PI-based regimen. In contrast, PI vs. IMID-based therapy and increased body weight were associated with a higher likelihood of progression (HR = 2.56 (95% CI 1.49-4.42); HR = 1.43, (95% CI 0.96-2.14), p = 0.08). To conclude, second line therapy with RD-Dara was associated with a significantly longer TT3T compared with IMID-based regimen, longer than obtained with PI-IMID and PI-based regimens, in patients treated outside clinical studies and previously exposed to bortezomib.
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.