Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40542961›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2025

Treatment Patterns, Goals, and Decision-Making Criteria for Second- and Third-Line Therapies for Multiple Myeloma in Germany.

H Tilman Steinmetz, Franziska Ertel, Beate Brinkmann, Katherine Houghton, Tram Nham, Carmen Flossmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

H Tilman SteinmetzMV-Zentrum für Hämatologie und Onkologie Köln Am Sachsenring GmbH, Sachsenring 69, 50677, Cologne, Germany. steinmetz@oncokoeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8580-3109
Franziska ErtelAmgen GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Beate BrinkmannAmgen GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Katherine HoughtonRTI Health Solutions, Manchester, UK.
Tram NhamRTI Health Solutions, Triangel Park, Durham, NC, USA.
Carmen FlossmannAmgen GmbH, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo document the decision-making criteria physicians use when selecting regimens for second- and third-line therapy for patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in Germany.

methodsExperienced multiple myeloma (MM) physicians extracted data from medical records from 30 June to 8 September 2023 for patients who initiated approved second- and third-line therapy for MM in 2021. Regimens, most important treatment goal, and key reasons for prescribing were reported in addition to patient characteristics. All data were summarised descriptively.

resultsMM physicians (33 hospital-based, 16 office-based) with a median of 17 years of treatment experience extracted data from a total of 268 patient records (second-line, n = 170; third-line, n = 98). In second- and third-line, 17 and 16 different regimens were documented, respectively. The most utilized second-line regimens were: daratumumab (D), lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone (d) (DRd 16.5%); carfilzomib (K), d and D (KdD 12.4%); Kd (11.2%); KRd; (10.0%); D, bortezomib (V) and d (DVd 9.4%); and V with cyclophosphamide (C) and d (VCd 7.1%). The main reasons for selecting the regimen were treatment effectiveness, patient characteristics/status, and relapse. Inducing deepest possible response and prolonging survival or symptom control were the most important treatment goals for triplet regimens. The main third-line regimens were: pomalidomide (P) and d (Pd 15.3%); DRd (13.3%); Rd (13.3%); elotuzumab (E) and Pd (EPd 12.2%); isatuximab (Isa) and Kd or KdD (10.2%); and ixazomib (I) and Rd (IRd 8.2%). The main reasons for selecting the regimens varied for third-line regimens but primarily focused on treatment effectiveness, patient characteristics/status, and prior therapy response or mechanism of action. The most important treatment goal was prolongation of survival.

conclusionThe results suggest that in the absence of a single standard of care for RRMM, prescribers made patient-centred choices of regimens with efficacy as the main goal of therapy.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Decision-MakingMultiple MyelomaPractice Patterns, Physicians'AgedAntibodies, MonoclonalDexamethasoneFemaleGermanyHumansLenalidomideMaleMiddle AgedAntibodies, MonoclonaldaratumumabDexamethasoneLenalidomideMultiple myelomaPersonalized carePrescription preferenceRelapse and refractorySecond-line therapyShared decision-makingThird-line therapyTreatment goalsTreatment reasons

Identifiers

PMID40542961
PMCPMC12313794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.