ArticleCancer medicine2025
Quantifying Preferences for CAR-T Compared to Standard of Care as a First-Line Treatment Among Patients With Multiple Myeloma.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCAR-T therapy is approved for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (MM) and is being studied for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). The use of novel therapies in early-line MM raises questions on the acceptability of upfront risks in exchange for extended relapse-free periods without the treatment burden and limitations on daily activities associated with maintenance therapy.
methodsA discrete-choice experiment was designed to elicit adults' preferences for hypothetical NDMM treatments. Benefits included time to relapse and reduction of treatment impact on daily activities. Severe adverse events were included to better understand patient preferences for rare but significant events.
resultsOn average, extending the time to relapse from 3 years (with moderate limitations on daily activities) to 5 years (without limitations) was three times more important than avoiding a 20% risk of hospitalization due to severe ICANS/CRS. Analysis revealed three latent preference classes: a benefit-risk trading class (65%), a class (28%) unwilling to accept increases in short-term treatment-related mortality, and a class (7%) that provided statistically uninformative data. For the trading class, for two additional relapse-free years with minor limitations, all else equal, patients would accept up to a 30% risk of severe ICANS/CRS-related hospitalization along with 0% risk of treatment-related mortality. Alternatively, they would accept up to an 8% risk of treatment-related mortality with a 0% risk of severe ICANS/CRS-related hospitalization, or various combinations of lower AE risks.
conclusionThese results reveal preference heterogeneity among MM patients and the importance of effective communication about the benefits and risks of novel therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.