| Title |
Impact of failed response to novel agent induction in autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Hematology, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00277-013-1911-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sung-Eun Lee, Jae-Ho Yoon, Seung-Hwan Shin, Byung-Sik Cho, Ki-Seong Eom, Yoo-Jin Kim, Hee-Je Kim, Seok Lee, Seok-Goo Cho, Dong-Wook Kim, Jong-Wook Lee, Woo-Sung Min, Chong-Won Park, Chang-Ki Min |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the response to induction therapy on the long-term prognosis of multiple myeloma (MM) after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the era of novel agents (NAs). A total of 171 patients who were newly diagnosed with MM and underwent early ASCT were analyzed. One hundred ten had a NA-based induction therapy, and 61 patients had a non-NA-based induction therapy. After a median follow-up of 45.4 months, the 4-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from transplantation were 60.5 and 25.5 %, respectively, for the NA-based induction group and 54.6 and 15.6 %, respectively, for the non-NA-based induction group. Multivariate analyses revealed that the patients who had NA-based induction had a significantly shorter OS (P < 0.001) and PFS (P < 0.001) when at least a partial response (PR) was not achieved. In patients who did not receive NAs before ASCT, lack of at least a PR to induction therapy was not associated with a survival disadvantage. These findings suggest that, unlike pretransplantation induction before NAs, patients who do not respond to induction treatment using NAs may not derive a benefit from ASCT. The relevance of induction failure differs for corticosteroid- and NA-based induction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 19% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 63% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2013.
All research outputs
#18,348,542
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Hematology
#1,440
of 2,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,473
of 207,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Hematology
#22
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,163 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 207,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.