ArticleOncology letters2026
Double vs. single autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma and high-risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Oncology letters, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple myeloma (MM) remains a challenging hematological malignancy despite therapeutic advances. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of double vs. single high-dose therapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for MM, with a specific interest in its application for individuals presenting with high-risk disease factors. A comprehensive search of the literature available in the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases was performed from inception to April 12, 2023. The analysis incorporated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared single HDT followed by ASCT (HDT/ASCT; administered with or without consolidation therapy) against double transplantation. A total of 8 RCTs were included in the final meta-analysis. The aggregated data demonstrated a hazard ratio of 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-0.80; P=0.001] for PFS and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.90; P=0.006) for overall survival (OS). These results imply that the double HDT/ASCT strategy may confer significant improvements in both PFS and OS for patients with at least one unfavorable prognostic marker. Findings from the network meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant disparities in PFS or OS outcomes when comparing double HDT/ASCT with single HDT/ASCT supplemented with consolidation therapy. Nevertheless, the double transplantation approach was associated with a markedly higher incidence of achieving at least a very good partial response relative to single HDT/ASCT (relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.33; P=0.02). Moreover, the risk of treatment-related mortality (TRM) was comparable between the double and single HDT/ASCT cohorts. In conclusion, the results of the present meta-analysis indicate that double HDT/ASCT was associated with a significantly higher rate of achieving at least a very good partial response without elevating TRM in the general MM population, indicating an improved treatment response. Notably, it offers superior PFS and OS advantages for high-risk patients. Therefore, double HDT/ASCT may be regarded as a viable and beneficial therapeutic option for this high-risk subgroup.
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.