Thalidomide versus bortezomib based regimens as first-line therapy for patients with multiple myeloma: A systematic review

American Journal of Hematology

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 18-24

  Kumar, Ambuj ^a,b   Hozo, Iztok ^c   Wheatley, Keath ^d   Djulbegovic, Benjamin ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY NORTHWEST   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BORTEZOMIB; MELPHALAN; PREDNISONE; THALIDOMIDE;

ARTICLE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG EFFECT; EVENT FREE SURVIVAL; HUMAN; MAINTENANCE THERAPY; META ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BORONIC ACIDS; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MELPHALAN; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; PREDNISONE; PYRAZINES; THALIDOMIDE;

EID: 78650352753     PISSN: 03618609     EISSN: 10968652     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.21904     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Alexanian R, Haut A, Khan AU. Treatment for multiple myeloma combination chemotherapy with different melphalan dose regimens. JAMA 1969; 208: 1680-1685.
2. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Liberati AM, et al. Oral melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: Updated results of a randomized controlled trial. Blood 2008; 112: 3107-3114.
3. Mateos M-V, Richardson PG, Schlag R, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone compared with melphalan and prednisone in previously untreated multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and impact of subsequent therapy in the phase III VISTA trial. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2259-2266.
4. Waage A, Gimsing P, Fayers P, et al. Melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide or placebo in elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2010; 116: 1405-1412.
5. Facon T, Mary JY, Hulin C, et al. Melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide versus melphalan and prednisone alone or reduced-intensity autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly patients with multiple myeloma (IFM 99-06): a randomised trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 1209-1218.
6. Hulin C, Facon T, Rodon P, et al. Efficacy of melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide in patients older than 75 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: IFM 01/01 trial. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3664-3670.
7. Wijermans P, Schaafsma M, van Norden Y, et al. Melphalan + prednisone versus melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide in induction therapy for multiple myeloma in elderly patients: final analysis of the dutch cooperative group HOVON 49 study. Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 2008; 112: 649.
8. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JClin Epidemiol. 1997; 50: 683-691.
9. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1-134, iii-iv.
10. Song F, Glenny AM, Altman DG. Indirect comparison in evaluating relative efficacy illustrated by antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Control Clin Trials 2000; 21: 488-497.
11. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: Empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003; 326: 472.
12. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, et al; for the Hedges T. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005; 330(7501): 1179.
13. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 663-694.
14. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323: 42-46.
15. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D. Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta-Analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ; 2001.
16. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2313-2324.
17. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trial 1986; 7: 177-188.
18. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560.
19. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1088-1101.
20. Egger M, Smith DG, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-634.
21. RevMan. Review Manager. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-269, W264.
23. Wijermans P, Schaafsma M, Termorshuizen F, et al. Phase III study of the value of thalidomide added to melphalan plus prednisone in elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: The HOVON 49 study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 3160-3166.
24. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A. Multiple myeloma: Detecting the effects of new treatments. Lancet 2008; 371: 1642-1644.
25. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Multiple Myeloma V. 2.2009.
26. Alderson P. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 2004; 328: 476-477.
27. Djulbegovic B. Articulating and responding to uncertainties in clinical research. J Med Philos 2007; 32: 79-98.