ArticleCancer management and research2026
Clinicopathological Features and Prognostic Differences Between Primary and Relapsed or Refractory Extramedullary Multiple Myeloma.
Article in Cancer management and research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to explore the clinicopathological features related to extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMM) occurrence and evaluate prognosis differences between patients with primary EMM (PEMM) and those with relapsed or refractory EMM (R/REMM). Patients and Methods: The laboratory test results, clinical, histopathological and immunophenotypic characteristics, cytogenetic changes and prognosis of 203 patients with MM were obtained. The patients were categorized into EMM+ and EMM- groups. Patients in the EMM+ group were further categorized into the PEMM and R/REMM groups based on the time of EMM occurrence, for further comparison. Results: The incidence of EMM was 24.6% (50/203). Further classification of EMM showed that the incidence of PEMM was 16.3% (33/203), that of R/REMM was 8.4% (17/203).The proportion of CD20+ was significantly lower than that in the EMM- group (2.0% vs 15.0%, Conclusion: R/REMM is an independent adverse prognostic factor for patients with MM. Patients with R/REMM are more likely to have plasma cell leukemia and lower albumin levels.
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.