ArticleEJHaem2024
Real-world practitioner perceptions of CARTITUDE-4 results for patients with previously treated multiple myeloma.
Article in EJHaem, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing a successful outpatient CAR T-Cell program with cilta-cel: real-world experience from an expert roundtable.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Real-world practitioner perceptions of CARTITUDE-4 results for patients with previously treated multiple myeloma.EJHaem · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Initially approved for the fifth-line or later therapeutic setting, the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell regimen ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) was recently approved for second-line (2L) treatment in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Oncology practitioners use clinical trials to inform treatment, but real-world impressions and impact on practice are lacking. We aimed to determine whether presenting CARTITUDE-4 clinical trial data would impact real-world preferences/perceptions around CAR T-cell therapy. Methods: Recruiting from the Cardinal Health Oncology Provider Extended Network (OPEN), we surveyed hematologists/oncologists to investigate fourth-line (4L) preferences in a hypothetical patient with triple-class-refractory MM. We posed the same questions and answers before and after the trial presentation and compared pre-/post-preferences toward cilta-cel and sequencing relative to bispecific antibodies (BsAbs). Using the same methodology as described above, we also performed a secondary analysis comparing pre-/post-perceptions on the use of CAR T-cell therapy in earlier lines for patients with triple-class-refractory MM. Results: Among 50 respondents, decision-making factors before the trial presentation included CAR T-cell center availability (58%), comorbidities (52%), and center locations (34%). Additionally, 48% of 46 respondents chose 4L cilta-cel. Among 47, 40% wanted more real-world/long-term CAR T-cell therapy outcomes in any line, 38% wanted more 2L data, and 34% favored 2L/third-line (3L) use. After the presentation, the preference for cilta-cel doubled from 48% to 88% ( Discussion: We have shown that making oncology practitioners aware of trials precipitated decision-making factors and led to notable, significant shifts in future intended practice patterns. Being aware of trial data enables practitioners to make more informed decisions, tailor therapies to individual patients, and ultimately improve outcomes.
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.