ArticleThe oncologist2025
The lifecycle and evolution of new regimens on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrior studies have evaluated the level of evidence behind treatment options listed in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, but no study has categorized the life cycle of regimens listed in the NCCN guidelines. We longitudinally assessed the life cycle for each regimen for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We track the date of first clinical data, the date of regimen addition to NCCN guidelines, the date phase 3 data (if performed) were reported, and the results of phase 3 trials.
methodsWe systematically examined NCCN guidelines from January 2000 to April 2021. The primary objective of our study was to assess the life cycle of each drug/regimen listed on the NCCN guidelines. We systematically examined the following aspects for each regimen: (1) the inception of prospective clinical data, (2) its inclusion in the NCCN guidelines, (3) the completion of a randomized trial (if done), (4) the presence of an overall survival benefit in such trials, and (5) the removal of a regimen from NCCN guidelines (if done) and its corresponding timeline.
resultsTwenty-one regimens were added across 50 NCCN guideline document iterations during a 22-year period. The median time from when clinical data were first presented to when a regimen was first listed in the guidelines was 15 months. Phase 3 studies were conducted for 17 regimens (80%), with a surrogate endpoint (response rate or progression-free survival) as endpoint for all trials, other than one. The median time from a regimen being included in the NCCN guideline to its phase 3 data publication was 43 months. The primary endpoint was met for 13 trials (81%). No regimen was removed for a phase 3 endpoint not being met. Six regimens (38%) showed overall survival benefit. Five (23%) regimens were removed from NCCN guidelines, with none being due to failure in phase 3 testing.
conclusionMyeloma NCCN guidelines remain relevant and current, adding new regimens with promising early-phase data, and removing regimens that become obsolete over time. However, this process is inconsistent and may benefit from standardization.
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.