SynthesisCancer2025
Allogeneic versus autologous stem cell transplantation after relapsing following first line autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAllogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) has curative potential and was previously considered by several experts superior to autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) for patients with multiple myeloma relapsing after first-line auto-SCT.
methodsThe authors conducted a comprehensive literature review of English-language studies published from 1995 to October 2024. Five studies comparing allo-SCT with second auto-SCT following first line auto-SCT in multiple myeloma were included. Two additional studies comparing patients with or without a suitable allo-SCT donor after relapse were analyzed separately. Individual data from 815 patients were obtained from two large databases: the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Data from five smaller studies (three comparing allo-vs. auto-SCT and two comparing donor vs. no-donor groups) presented via Kaplan-Meier curves were digitized using the Shiny app. Meta-analyses were performed using R 4.3.3. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were conducted in SPSS.
resultsIndividual patient data analysis showed significantly longer OS in the auto-SCT group. This benefit was consistent in the three smaller studies. PFS was also superior for auto-SCT in the CIBMTR data set and the pooled smaller studies. In the two-donor vs. no-donor studies, the donor group showed better PFS, with OS also improved when data were combined.
conclusionsAllo-SCT after relapse from first line auto-SCT resulted in inferior OS and PFS compared to a second auto-SCT. These findings indicate that allo-SCT should no longer be recommended in patients with multiple myeloma relapsing after first line auto-SCT.
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.