Cited by 495Multiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies

Standard Chemotherapy Compared With High-Dose Chemoradiotherapy for Multiple Myeloma: Final Results of Phase III US Intergroup Trial S9321

Open access
Barlogie, Bart, Kyle, Robert A., Anderson, Kenneth C., Greipp, Philip R., Lazarus, Hillard M., Hurd, David D., McCoy, Jason, Moore, Dennis F. +7 more·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Results of a prospective randomized trial conducted by the Intergroupe Francais du Myélome (IFM 90) indicated that autologous hematopoietic cell–supported high-dose therapy (HDT) effected higher complete response rates and extended progression-free survial (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with standard-dose therapies (SDT) for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Patients and Methods: In 1993, three North American cooperative groups launched a prospective randomized trial (S9321) comparing HDT (melphalan [MEL] 140 mg/m 2 plus total-body irradiation 12 Gy) with SDT using the vincristine, carmustine, MEL, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone regimen. Responders on both arms (≥ 75%) were randomly assigned to interferon (IFN) or no maintenance treatment. Results: With a median follow-up time of 76 months, no differences were observed in response rates between the two study arms (HDT, n = 261 patients; SDT, n = 255 patients). Similarly, PFS and OS durations did not differ between the HDT and SDT arms, with 7-year estimates of PFS of 17% and 16%, respectively, and OS of 37% and 42%, respectively. Of 242 patients achieving at least 75% tumor reduction, no difference was observed in PFS or OS among the 121 patients randomly assigned to IFN and the 121 patients randomly assigned to no maintenance therapy. Among 157 patients relapsing on SDT, 87 received a salvage autotransplantation; their median survival time of 30 months was only slightly better than the survival time of the remaining patients who were managed with further SDT (23 months; P = .13). Conclusion: The HDT and SDT regimens used in S9321 yielded comparable response rates and PFS and OS durations. IFN maintenance therapy did not benefit patients who achieved ≥ 75% tumor reduction on either arm.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2005.04.5807

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Randomized trials have consistently found similar overall survival with early ASCT versus delayed ASCT.

    “However, randomized trials have consistently found similar OS with early ASCT (immediately following 4 cycles of induction therapy) versus delayed ASCT (at the time of relapse as salvage therapy).94,129–131”

    From Multiple myeloma: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management (2024) · cites this paper as [131]

    The Clinical Outcome section reports identical 7-year overall survival estimates for patients randomized after four cycles of induction therapy to high-dose therapy or standard-dose therapy. It also reports that some patients in the standard-dose arm received a salvage autotransplant after relapse. The trial did not randomize patients to early versus delayed ASCT, so it supports similar survival between its treatment arms, not the stated timing comparison directly. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barlogie, B., Kyle, R. A., Anderson, K. C., Greipp, P. R., Lazarus, H. M., Hurd, D. D., McCoy, J., Moore, D. F., Dakhil, S. R., Lanier, K. S., Chapman, R. A., Cromer, J. N., Salmon, S. E., Durie, B., & Crowley, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • From the University of Arkansas for Medical Science, Little Rock, AR; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH; Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC; Southwest Oncology Group Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Columbia River Community Clinical Oncology Program, Portland, OR; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; St Jude Children's Research Hospital,...
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-02-20
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
929-936
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2152333590
Cited by
495
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 33
FWCI
33.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (CA38926, CA32102, CA31946)
  • National Institutes of Health (5u10ca035117-10, 2u10ca038926-25, 5u10ca004920-35, 2u10ca058415-06)
  • National Cancer Institute (U10CA016385, CA35192, U10CA004919, CA22-433, CA-58861, CA-58658, CA52654, CA 68183, CA-45377, U10CA035261, CA-76462, CA-35117, CA-35261, CA-46282, CA76132, CA37981, CA 20319, CA-32102, U10CA074647, CA 45450, CA03927, CA35119, CA-16385, CA58416, U10CA003927, CA 42777, U10CA045377, CA04919, U10CA068183, CA13650, U10CA014028, U10CA045560, CA27057, CA 74647, CA-58686, CA46368, CA46441, CA 04920, CA 63845, U10CA046368, CA-76429, CA67575, CA-12644, U10CA027057, U10CA035090, U10CA058686, CA 14028, U10CA020319, CA 46113, U10CA076429, U10CA014548, U10CA013612, U10CA032291, CA 58415, U10CA035119, U10CA058658, CA35431, U10CA032102, U10CA022433, U10CA046282, U10CA052654, CA14548, U10CA045450, U10CA031946, U10CA046113, U10CA012644, U10CA013650, U10CA042777, CA 13612, U10CA063845, CA 32291, U10CA063844, U10CA058416, U10CA035431, U10CA035192, CA 38926, CA63844, U10CA058861, CA-76447, U10CA037981, U10CA076447, CA45560, U10CA067575, CA-35090, CA-31946, U10CA046441)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Keywords
multiple myeloma, high-dose chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, autologous stem cell transplantation, melphalan, total body irradiation, standard-dose chemotherapy, progression-free survival, overall survival
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Carmustine, Clinical Protocols, Cyclophosphamide, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Interferons, Male, Melphalan, Middle Aged, Multiple Myeloma, Prednisone, Prospective Studies, Transplantation, Autologous, Transplantation, Homologous, United States, Vincristine, Whole-Body Irradiation, Survival Analysis, Bone Marrow Transplantation, Salvage Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Treatment Failure, Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Disease-Free Survival, Radiotherapy, Adjuvant

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