ArticleBMC cancer2024
Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-world clinical outcomes of autologous stem cell transplantation in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systematic literature review.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD), and bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (PAD), are commonly used in induction regimens for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) in China. This real-world study enrolled 390 patients, 195 receiving VRD and 195 receiving PAD induction. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and stringent complete remission/complete remission. Across the entire cohort, VRD demonstrated significantly improved five-year overall survival (OS) (74% vs. 59%, p = 0.0024) and five-year PFS (67% vs. 37%, p = 0.0018) compared to PAD. Notably, the median OS and PFS were not reached for VRD-treated patients, while they were 77 months (60-not reached [NR]) and 46 months (36-NR), respectively, for PAD. In patients with standard-risk cytogenetics, VRD showed superior five-year OS (83% vs. 58%, p = 0.0038) and PFS (78% vs. 48%, p = 0.0091) compared to PAD. However, these differences were not statistically significant in high-risk patients. For transplanted patients, VRD was associated with superior five-year OS (91% vs. 67%, p = 0.014) and PFS (79% vs. 47%, p = 0.015) compared to PAD. In non-transplanted patients, VRD showed a trend towards improved five-year OS (p = 0.085) and PFS (p = 0.073) compared to the PAD group. In conclusion, VRD displayed superior OS and PFS outcomes in standard-risk patients and those who underwent transplantation. These findings suggest potential advantages of VRD over PAD in real-world clinical settings for NDMM treatment. However, due to the imbalance in transplantation rates between the VRD and PAD groups, limitations in testing for high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRA), and the difference between the received cycles and salvage therapies, the conclusions of this study should be interpreted with caution.
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.