ArticleBritish journal of haematology2026
Functional high-risk phenotype predicts poor survival in multiple myeloma independent of front-line treatment: A secondary analysis of CIBMTR data.
Article in British journal of haematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Article
- Functional high-risk phenotype predicts poor survival in multiple myeloma independent of front-line treatment: A secondary analysis of CIBMTR data.British journal of haematology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional high-risk (FHR) multiple myeloma (FHRMM) is often defined as progression within 12-24 months of front-line autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). For patients with early progression after suboptimal front-line therapies, it is challenging to assign the disease progression to a true FHR phenotype versus less effective front-line therapy. In this study, we combined data from three Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research studies (MM18-02, MM19-01 and MM20-03). We included patients who received front-line AHSCT between 2008 and 2018 and had progression <12 (FHR12, n = 465), <18 (FHR18, n = 672) or <24 months (FHR24, n = 853) after AHSCT. We classified induction therapy as standard lenalidomide-containing triplets (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone [VRD]/carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone [KRD]) versus other (bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone [VTD]/bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone [VCD]/bortezomib, dexamethasone [VD]/lenalidomide, dexamethasone [RD]) and studied the impact of front-line therapy on post-FHR overall survival (OS). In the FHR12 cohort (follow-up 48 months), the OS after VRD/KRD (n = 238) was 21 versus 17 months with other regimens (n = 227, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6-1.06). In a multivariable model, the HR for OS was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.7-1.3, p = 0.69) for VRD/KRD versus other regimens. There was no significant interaction between type of first-line (1L) therapy and time from 1L AHSCT to first relapse in predicting OS. Similar results were seen for FHR18 and FHR24. FHRMM remains a negative prognostic factor irrespective of front-line therapy and warrants consideration of T-cell engagers' second-line therapy.
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.