Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38328864›Full record

ReviewHaematologica2024

Role of minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma.

Raphael Szalat, Kenneth Anderson, Nikhil Munshi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Haematologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Measurable Residual Disease.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Raphael SzalatSection of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA. raphael.szalat@bmc.org.
Kenneth AndersonJerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Nikhil MunshiJerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematologic malignancy characterized by clonal proliferation of plasma cells. MM is a heterogeneous disease, featured by various molecular subtypes with different outcomes. With the advent of very efficient therapies including monoclonal antibodies, bispecific T-cell engagers and chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T cells), most MM patients now have a prolonged survival. However, the disease remains incurable, and a subgroup of high-risk patients continue to have early relapse and short survival. Novel and highly sensitive methods have been developed allowing the detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) during or after treatment. Achievement of MRD negativity is a strong and independent prognostic factor in both prospective randomized clinical trials and in the real-world setting. While MRD assessment is now a validated endpoint in clinical trials, its incorporation in clinical practice is not yet established and its potential impact on guiding therapy remains under in-depth evaluation. Here we discuss the different methods available for MRD assessment and the role of MRD evaluation in MM management.

Indexed as

Multiple MyelomaNeoplasm, ResidualBiomarkers, TumorDisease ManagementHumansPrognosisBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID38328864
PMCPMC11215375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.