ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Addressing unmet needs in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: an Italian Delphi consensus on current challenges and emerging therapies.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite advances in treating multiple myeloma, the management of patients with relapsed or refractory disease remains a major clinical challenge. The increasing use of novel agents in frontline therapy has led to a growing population refractory to key drugs such as lenalidomide and daratumumab, resulting in limited effective options in subsequent lines. Moreover, the increasing prevalence of double-refractory cases highlights a challenge with limited evidence guiding treatment choice. In Italy, the anticipated introduction of innovative immunotherapies offers new hope, yet their real-world impact remains uncertain. This study aimed to establish expert consensus on current challenges, emerging therapies, and address unmet needs in the Italian clinical landscape. Methods: A modified Delphi process was employed to reach consensus regarding the current and future management of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Italy. One hematology expert served as opinion leader, while a panel of eight experts participated in two rounds of online surveys and a final virtual consensus meeting. Panelists were blinded to others throughout the process. In each survey round, experts provided their level of agreement on statements regarding epidemiology of multiple myeloma in Italy, treatment patterns in clinical practice, and unmet needs in second and subsequent therapy lines. The final meeting allowed discussion and consolidation of responses. Results: Most statements (28/31, 90%) achieved consensus after two Delphi rounds, while three required further discussion and agreement in the final meeting. Experts reached consensus on the epidemiology of multiple myeloma in Italy and preferred treatment patterns for relapsed/refractory disease. They consistently highlighted the limited efficacy and safety of available second- and third-line therapies for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, regardless of prior exposure, recognizing a substantial unmet clinical need due to the lack of satisfactory options, particularly in specific populations including double-refractory patients to lenalidomide and anti-CD38 agents. The anticipated introduction of innovative immunotherapies was identified as a promising opportunity to address these gaps and improve outcomes. Conclusion: Despite multiple available agents and combinations, effective treatment of all patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma remains a major unmet need. Given their distinct mechanism of action, immunotherapies hold significant potential to address this gap and improve clinical outcomes.
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.