ArticleCancer medicine2026
Prognosis of Extramedullary Disease in Chinese Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Treated With Novel Agents-Based Induction Therapy.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extramedullary disease (EMD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is aggressive and associated with worse survival. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the clinical outcomes and factors affecting prognosis in NDMM patients with EMD receiving novel agents-based induction therapy. EMD presented in 94 cases (21.2%) among 443 screened NDMM patients. Eighty-five EMD patients with complete clinical and follow-up data were subdivided into extramedullary bone-related disease (EMB, n = 55) and extramedullary extraosseous disease (EME, n = 30). EMD patients did not present a significantly high tumor burden or worse disease stage than non-EMD patients. With novel agents-based induction therapy, the overall response (OR) rate in the EMD group was significantly lower than in the non-EMD group (88.2% vs 96.8%, p = 0.005), but was comparable between EMB and EME (90.9% vs 83.3%, p = 0.494). The number of patients achieving complete remission (CR) or stringent CR (sCR) in the EME group was significantly less than that in the EMB or non-EMD group. After a median follow-up of 49 months, EME patients showed significantly inferior progression-free survival (PFS) compared with non-EMD and EMB patients (median PFS: 20 vs 39 vs 32 months, p = 0.000). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that patients with EME and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) experienced the most unfavorable survival outcomes, although these findings require validation in larger cohorts. Patients achieving sCR/CR demonstrated significantly prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS). Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was associated with improved survival. Novel agents-based induction therapy achieved favorable responses and encouraging survival outcomes in patients with EMD, particularly among those achieving deep remissions. EME patients appear to represent a clinically aggressive disease phenotype whose adverse prognosis is closely intertwined with high-risk clinical and cytogenetic characteristics rather than being entirely independent. Larger prospective multicenter studies are warranted to validate these findings and optimize treatment strategies for patients with EMD.
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.