ArticleBone marrow transplantation2025
Attitudes and perspectives of oncologists about measurable residual disease testing in multiple myeloma: initiative for standardizing guidelines.
Article in Bone marrow transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Next Generation Flow and Next Generation Sequencing for Measurable Residual Disease Assessment in Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Real-Life Italian Multicenter Harmonization Experience.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Measurable residual disease in hematologic malignancies: a biomarker in search of a standard.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measurable residual disease (MRD) testing is emerging as a crucial prognostic and treatment-guiding tool in multiple myeloma (MM). Despite its potential, routine clinical adoption remains inconsistent. This study aimed to explore oncologists' perspectives on MRD testing and identify barriers and facilitators to its clinical integration. A cross-sectional, modified Delphi survey was conducted among hematologists and oncologists globally, and 115 responses were received. Our findings reveal significant variability in MRD testing, influenced primarily by specialty rather than geographic location, years of experience, or practice setting (academic vs community settings). Plasma cell-focused physicians were more likely to conduct routine MRD testing. Flow cytometry was the preferred testing methodology globally, with significant variations in acceptable negativity thresholds. The primary purpose of MRD testing was to guide treatment decisions; however, U.S. physicians employed it primarily to discuss results with patients. Key barriers to assessment included testing unavailability, lack of standardized guidelines, and, in non-U.S. settings, financial constraints. These findings highlight the need for consensus-driven guidelines to standardize MRD implementation, improve accessibility, and educate clinicians on its clinical utility. Addressing these gaps will be essential to leveraging MRD as a routine decision-making tool, ultimately optimizing patient outcomes in MM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40325139What 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.