ArticleHemaSphere2024
Biological relapse in multiple myeloma: Outcome and treatment strategies in a Spanish real-world setting.
Article in HemaSphere, 2024. 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.
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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recommendations regarding the best time to start treatment in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after biological relapse/progression (BR) are unclear. This observational, prospective, multicenter registry aimed to evaluate the impact on time to progression (TTP) of treatment initiation at BR versus at symptomatic clinical relapse (ClinR) based on the Spanish routine practice in adult patients with RRMM. Patients had two or less previous treatment lines and at least one previous partial response. Baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes were recorded, and survival was analyzed. Of 225 patients, 110 were treated at BR (TxBR group) and 115 at ClinR (TxClinR group) according to the investigators' criteria. The proportion of patients with higher ECOG, previous noncomplete remission (CR), and second relapse were significantly higher in the TxBR group compared to the TxClinR group. TheTxClinR group showed improved outcomes, including TTP, compared to the TxBR group. Progression-free survival increased in the TxClinR group (56.2 months) compared to the TxBR group (32.5 months) (
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.