ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Integrating clinical and economic outcomes in the elderly myeloma management: a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematologic malignancy that predominantly affects older adults and poses substantial therapeutic challenges due to the high prevalence of comorbidities and limited treatment tolerability. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of four first-line treatment regimens for elderly MM patients, ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT): bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP); daratumumab in combination with VMP (D-VMP); lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd); and daratumumab combined with Rd (DARA-Rd). Methods: A state-transition Markov model was developed, with transition probabilities parameterized using data derived from the pivotal ALCYONE and MAIA clinical trials. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service using a state-transition model comparing VMP, D-VMP, Rd and DARA-Rd over a 5.25-year horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to account for parameter uncertainty and summarized through cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Results: Rd generated 1.53 QALYs for €60,483, whereas D-VMP generated 1.70 QALYs at €88,331, resulting in an ICER of €160,804/QALY. DARA-Rd and VMP were dominated. Conclusion: The findings indicate that Rd is the strategy with the highest probability of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below €250,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Conversely, for WTP thresholds exceeding €250,000 per QALY gained, D-VMP emerges as the preferred option, offering the most favorable balance between additional costs and health benefits.
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.