SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Management of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with multiple myeloma: a systematic review and expert consensus in Australia.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a consensus-based competency framework for hospital pharmacists in the management of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs): a modified delphi study in Macao.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Beyond exhaustion: T cell fitness for next generation of immunotherapy for hematological cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Diagnosis, Treatment, and Unmet Needs of Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma in the United States: A Multidisciplinary Delphi Study.Cancers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Regulatory bodies have recently approved chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but the treatment process involves complex decision making. To support the introduction of these therapies, we aimed to establish consensus expert opinion on best practices of all aspects of the management of patients with MM undergoing CAR-T cell therapy in Australia. Methods: We conducted a modified RAND/UCLA two-round Delphi panel informed by a systematic literature review (SLR). The SLR included evidence from clinical practice guidelines, interventional trials, and observational studies for CAR-T cell therapy for patients with MM, to synthesize methodological aspects of CAR-T cell therapy related to patient management. The Delphi panel comprised eight hematologists from across Australia, each with significant experience directly treating patients using CAR-T therapy or referring patients for CAR-T cell therapy. Panelists completed the surveys electronically, and attended a virtual meeting held before the second-round questionnaire to discuss the first-round questionnaire responses. Consensus was defined Results: The SLR identified 22 interventional or observational studies and 5 clinical practice guidelines reporting on selection and management of patients with MM treated with CAR-T cell therapy from various global regions. The Delphi panel reached consensus on practices related to patient referral, screening, selection, prioritization, treatments requiring wash-out, bridging therapy, lymphodepletion, infusion, and post-infusion monitoring and management. Most consensus results aligned with consistently recommended practices within guidelines included in the SLR. Consensus was not reached for statements related to specific screening practices and post-treatment monitoring, suggesting differing opinions on the specific best practices to implement. Conclusion: Our Delphi panel established expert consensus on key considerations for patient selection, administrative processes, and aftercare for patients with MM in Australia undergoing CAR-T therapy. This will guide the development of clinical practice guidelines which are relevant and feasible to Australian health systems.
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.