Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41348032›Full record

ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2025

Can I stop my treatment, doctor? Is MRD-guided therapy ready for prime time?

Benjamin A Derman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

1 author.

Benjamin A DermanSection of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indefinite maintenance therapy, typically with lenalidomide, remains a standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma, largely based on studies that demonstrated improved progression-free and overall survival compared to observation or placebo. However, these early trials often did not incorporate modern induction regimens or measurable residual disease (MRD) assessments. Despite newer induction regimens leading to high rates of MRD negativity, further intensification of maintenance remains the focus rather than de-escalation. As treatment paradigms have evolved to include quadruplet induction regimens and sensitive MRD assays, clinicians and patients increasingly question whether maintenance therapy can be safely stopped in selected individuals. This review examines the rationale for maintenance therapy, the historical data supporting its use, and emerging evidence from prospective studies suggesting that maintenance may be safely discontinued in patients with sustained multimodal MRD negativity. Patient-centered considerations, such as treatment-related toxicity, quality of life, and financial burden, underscore the importance of individualized decision-making regarding maintenance cessation. Also explored are future directions in MRD-guided treatment strategies, including de-escalation in the context of deep and sustained response. As the evidence base evolves, the challenge remains to balance the risks of indefinite therapy with the potential benefits of personalized, response-adaptive care in multiple myeloma.

Indexed as

LenalidomideMultiple MyelomaHumansMaintenance ChemotherapyNeoplasm, ResidualLenalidomide

Identifiers

PMID41348032
PMCPMC12891372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.