The DOI matches its Crossref record.
High-Dose Melphalan versus Melphalan plus Dexamethasone for AL Amyloidosis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation has been reported to provide higher response rates and better overall survival than standard chemotherapy in immunoglobulin-light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, but these two strategies have not been compared in a randomized study. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial comparing high-dose intravenous melphalan followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell rescue with standard-dose melphalan plus high-dose dexamethasone in patients with AL amyloidosis. Patients (age range, 18 to 70 years) with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis were randomly assigned to receive intravenous high-dose melphalan plus autologous stem cells or oral melphalan plus oral high-dose dexamethasone. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled in each group. The results were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, with overall survival as the primary end point. After a median follow-up of 3 years, the estimated median overall survival was 22.2 months in the group assigned to receive high-dose melphalan and 56.9 months in the group assigned to receive melphalan plus high-dose dexamethasone (P=0.04). Among patients with high-risk disease, overall survival was similar in the two groups. Among patients with low-risk disease, there was a nonsignificant difference between the two groups in overall survival at 3 years (58% in the group assigned to receive high-dose melphalan vs. 80% in the group assigned to receive melphalan plus high-dose dexamethasone; P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of treatment of AL amyloidosis with high-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell rescue was not superior to the outcome with standard-dose melphalan plus dexamethasone. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00344526 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Mikhael, J. R., Schuster, S. R., Jimenez-Zepeda, V. H., Bello, N., Spong, J., Reeder, C. B., Stewart, A. K., Bergsagel, P. L., & Fonseca, R. (2012) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2011-11-390930 · Cited by 375
Afrough, A., Saliba, R. M., Hamdi, A., El Fakih, R., Varma, A., Dinh, Y. T., Rondon, G., Cornelison, A. M., Shah, N. D., Bashir, Q., et al. (2015) · Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.03.025 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Jaccard, A., Moreau, P., Leblond, V., Leleu, X., Benboubker, L., Hermine, O., Recher, C., Asli, B., Lioure, B., Royer, B., Jardin, F., Bridoux, F., Grosbois, B., Jaubert, J., Piette, J.-C., Ronco, P., Quet, F., Cogne, M., & Fermand, J.-P.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2007-09-13
- Volume
- 357
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1083-1093
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2033793452
- Cited by
- 519
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High-Dose Melphalan versus Melphalan plus Dexamethasone for AL Amyloidosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa070484
- The paper
- Jaccard, A., Moreau, P., Leblond, V., Leleu, X., Benboubker, L., Hermine, O., Recher, C., Asli, B., Lioure, B., Royer, B., Jardin, F., Bridoux, F., Grosbois, B., Jaubert, J., Piette, J.-C., Ronco, P., Quet, F., Cogne, M., & Fermand, J.-P. (2007). High-Dose Melphalan versus Melphalan plus Dexamethasone for AL Amyloidosis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa070484
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.