ArticleEuropean journal of haematology2026
Positioning of Melflufen in Heavily Pretreated RRMM Patients: Real-World Evidence in a Rapidly Evolving Therapeutic Landscape.
Article in European journal of haematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern therapies have clearly marked the history of multiple myeloma (MM), leading to undisputed advantages in terms of sustained responses and prolonged survival, while progressively improving patients' quality of life. Nonetheless, disease recurrence and resistance to available therapies underscore the importance of identifying additional treatment options, especially in hard-to-treat patients, or when access to cutting-edge immunotherapies is limited. Melflufen (melphalan-flufenamide) plus dexamethasone has been approved by the European Medicines Agency for triple-class-refractory MM patients after ≥ 3 prior therapies, but current data from real-world settings are scarce. We herein report data from a single-center experience of 17 relapsed/refractory MM patients treated with melflufen-dexamethasone outside clinical trials between December 2021 and July 2025 in Bologna (Italy). The overall response rate was 41%. At a median follow-up (mFU) of 8 months, mPFS was 3.7 months (95% CI 1.8-NR) in the overall population, being 9.0 months (95% CI 7.8-NR) in responders (mFU 10 months), while mOS has not been reached (95% CI 13.5-NR) either in the total population or in subgroups. Notably, 11/17 patients received subsequent therapies (seven receiving novel immunotherapeutic approaches), achieving deeper and more durable responses than those receiving conventional regimens. Grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities were common (35% anemia, 53% neutropenia, 53% thrombocytopenia), while grade ≥ 3 nonhematologic events were less frequent (mainly fatigue: 6%, and infections: 23.5%). No secondary primary malignancies were recorded. Collectively, our data confirmed the efficacy previously reported with melflufen-dexamethasone and its manageable safety profile, even in elderly patients likely more fragile and more heavily pretreated than those included in the trials. Overall, melflufen-dexamethasone may represent a treatment option, especially for patients refractory to novel immunotherapies or those who are not ideal candidates to receive such treatments while still preserving access to subsequent T-cell redirecting therapies, thereby addressing a significant unmet need in this hard-to-treat patient population.
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.