% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Blocka:144571,
      author       = {J. Blocka and T. Hielscher$^*$ and C. Mueller-Tidow and H.
                      Goldschmidt and J. Hillengass},
      title        = {{S}alvage therapy versus upfront autologous stem cell
                      transplantation in multiple myeloma patients with
                      progressive disease after first-line induction therapy.},
      journal      = {Leukemia and lymphoma},
      volume       = {61},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {1029-2403},
      address      = {London [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Taylor $\&$ Francis Group},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2019-02014},
      pages        = {27-36},
      year         = {2020},
      note         = {2020 Jan;61(1):27-36},
      abstract     = {It is a matter of debate whether myeloma patients with
                      progressive disease (PD) after induction should receive
                      salvage therapy or proceed directly to autologous stem cell
                      transplantation. We performed a retrospective analysis of
                      1599 patients treated between 1991 and 2016 at the
                      University Hospital of Heidelberg and other centers.
                      Deepening of response through salvage therapy did not lead
                      to better progression-free or overall survival (PD versus
                      salvage therapy patients: HR = 0.71, $95\%$ CI [0.28,
                      1.80], p = 0.5 and HR = 0.77, $95\%$ CI [0.30,
                      1.95], p = 0.6, respectively), neither in patients
                      treated with novel agents (HR = 0.66, $95\%$ CI [0.23,
                      1.85], p = 0.4 and HR = 0.76, $95\%$ CI [0.27,
                      2.15], p = 0.6) nor older regimens (HR = 0.86,
                      $95\%$ CI [0.36, 2.07], p = 0.7 and HR = 0.8, $95\%$
                      CI [0.34, 1.91], p = 0.6). Therefore, primary
                      nonresponders might benefit from a direct transplant rather
                      than salvage induction, although the analyzed salvage
                      therapy cohort was small (n = 23) and cytogenetics was
                      not included in the multivariable analysis.},
      cin          = {C060},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:31423866},
      doi          = {10.1080/10428194.2019.1646905},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/144571},
}