Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38895059›Full record

ArticleEJHaem2024

QoL during KTd or KRd induction followed by K maintenance or observation in transplant noneligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of the randomized AGMT 02 study.

Heinz Ludwig, Thomas Melchardt, Ilvy Schweitzer, Siegfried Sormann, Martin Schreder, Johannes Andel, Bernd Hartmann, Niklas Zojer, Laurenz Schöffmann, Eberhard Gunsilius and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJHaem, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

25 authors.

Heinz LudwigWilhelminen Cancer Research Institute c/o Department of Medicine I, Clinic Ottakring Vienna Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3302-8726
Thomas MelchardtDepartment of Internal Medicine III with Haematology, Medical Oncology, Haemostaseology, Infectiology and Rheumatology, Oncologic Center, Salzburg Cancer Research Institute - Laboratory for Immunological and Molecular Cancer Research (SCRI-LIMCR), Paracelsus Medical University Cancer Cluster Salzburg Salzburg Austria.
Ilvy SchweitzerWilhelminen Cancer Research Institute c/o Department of Medicine I, Clinic Ottakring Vienna Austria.
Siegfried SormannDepartment of Hematology University Clinic for Internal Medicine Graz Austria.
Martin SchrederDepartment of Medicine I Clinic Ottakring Vienna Austria.
Johannes AndelDepartment of Internal Medicine II Pyhrn-Eisenwurzen Klinikum Steyr Steyr Austria.
Bernd HartmannDepartment of Internal Medicine II LKH Rankweil Salzburg Austria.
Niklas ZojerDepartment of Medicine I Clinic Ottakring Vienna Austria.
Laurenz SchöffmannDepartment for Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care LKH Hochsteiermark, Standort Leoben Leoben Austria.
Eberhard GunsiliusDepartment of Internal Medicine V Medical University Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria.
Klaus PodarDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Krems; and Molecular Oncology and Hematology Unit Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems an der Donau Krems Austria.
Alexander EgleDepartment of Internal Medicine III with Haematology, Medical Oncology, Haemostaseology, Infectiology and Rheumatology, Oncologic Center, Salzburg Cancer Research Institute - Laboratory for Immunological and Molecular Cancer Research (SCRI-LIMCR), Paracelsus Medical University Cancer Cluster Salzburg Salzburg Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0648-4416
Wolfgang WillenbacherDepartment of Internal Medicine V Medical University Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria.
Ewald WöllDepartment of Internal Medicine St. Vinzenz Krankenhaus Zams Zams Austria.
Reinhard RuckserDepartment of Medicine II Clinic Donaustadt Vienna Austria.
Boris BozicDepartment of Medicine II Clinic Donaustadt Vienna Austria.
Maria-Theresa KrauthUniversity Clinic for Internal Medicine I AKH, Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria.
Andreas PetzerDepartment of Internal Medicine I BHS Linz Linz Austria.
Clemens SchmittClinic for Internal Medicine 3 Kepler University Clinic Linz Linz Austria.
Sigrid Machherndl-SpandlDepartment of Internal Medicine I Elisabethinen, Linz Linz Austria.
Hermine AgisDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Division of Oncology Medical University Vienna Vienna Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1125-0211
Michael FillitzDepartment of Internal Medicine Hanusch Krankenhaus Vienna Austria.
Song-Yau WangMedical Clinic and Policlinic I University Clinic Leipzig Leipzig Germany.
Stefan KnopKlinik für Innere Medizin 5, Schwerpunkt Onkologie/Hämatologie Klinikum Nürnberg Nord Nürnberg Germany.
Richard GreilDepartment of Internal Medicine III with Haematology, Medical Oncology, Haemostaseology, Infectiology and Rheumatology, Oncologic Center, Salzburg Cancer Research Institute - Laboratory for Immunological and Molecular Cancer Research (SCRI-LIMCR), Paracelsus Medical University Cancer Cluster Salzburg Salzburg Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4462-3694

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the impact of induction and maintenance therapy on patients' quality of life (QoL) is important for treatment selection. This study aims to compare patient-reported QoL between patients treated with KTd or KRd induction therapy and K maintenance therapy or observation. QoL was assessed using the EORTC QOL-C 30 and QOL-MY20 questionnaires in the AGMT-02 study, in which 123 patients with newly diagnosed transplant ineligible multiple myeloma were randomized to nine cycles of either KTd or KRd induction therapy, followed by 12 cycles of K maintenance therapy, or observation. Longitudinal assessments showed statistically significant improvements in global health-related QoL, various disease symptoms and pain for both treatment regimens. KTd improved insomnia and fatigue, and KRd improved physical functioning. Cross-sectional comparisons indicated a "slight" superiority of KTd over KRd in several scales, with the exception of higher neuropathy scores with KTd. During maintenance, longitudinal comparisons showed no statistically significant changes. Cross-sectional comparisons revealed a "slight" improvement in cognitive functioning during carfilzomib therapy, but a worsening in most other QoL scales. Induction therapy led to improvements in most QoL items, while maintenance therapy with K maintenance was associated with "slight" or "moderate" impairments in several QoL scales compared with the observation group.

Indexed as

carfilzomiblenalidomidemultiple myelomaquality of lifethalidomide

Identifiers

PMID38895059
PMCPMC11182399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.