ArticleBMC cancer2025
Supporting treatment decision-making for patients with multiple myeloma post-DRd in Italy: a multi-criteria decision framework.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multicriteria decision analysis in the Italian healthcare context: a review of applications and methodological approaches.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Patient preferences for treatment‑free intervals in multiple myeloma: mixed‑methods insights on monitoring trade‑offs and supportive care improvements.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA substantial unmet medical need exists for patients with Multiple Myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation who relapse after first-line therapy with daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd). Three therapeutic options recommended for lenalidomide-refractory patients from EHA-ESMO guidelines are approved in Europe and reimbursed in Italy: carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd); pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVd); selinexor, bortezomib and dexamethasone (SVd). This study aimed to identify key decision criteria and their relevance for assessing these alternatives from a multi-stakeholder perspective.
methodsFollowing ISPOR good practices, we developed a multiple-criteria decision analysis framework using the Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique method. Preferences were elicited from multiple stakeholders, including hematologists, methodologists, decision-makers, and patient representatives. Decision criteria were identified through a targeted literature review, discussed in a multi-stakeholder workshop, and shortlisted with a pragmatic literature review to assess data availability for each alternative.
resultsThe final multiple-criteria decision analysis framework comprised five main criteria: acquisition cost, efficacy, organizational impact, route of administration, and safety. Within the safety criterion, we considered six sub-criteria related to six adverse events: peripheral neuropathy, diarrhoea, nausea, fatigue, anaemia, and thrombocytopenia. Efficacy emerged as the most relevant criterion by most respondents, with a median weight of 38.1%, followed by the safety criterion (26.8% median weight), with peripheral neuropathy being the most relevant safety sub-criterion (34.9%). Based on elicited preferences, SVd was ranked as the most valuable therapy with a global score of 72, followed by PVd (44) and Kd (26), on account of its clinical efficacy. No significant differences in preferences were observed across different stakeholder groups.
conclusionsThis study provides valuable insights into the post-DRd treatment landscape for Multiple Myeloma, supporting decision-making from an Italian multi-stakeholder perspective.
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.