Contemporary treatments for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) are being hailed as “breakthrough,” “the next big thing,” and “new hope.”1 In fact, at least 60 papers from a recent systematic review2 included such language in titles or abstracts, as well as “hope,” “promise,” “life-saving,” “revolutionized,” and “enthusiasm,” among others. However, while there are a small number of therapies that are considered breakthrough by the US Food and Drug Administration, hurdles still exist to endorse the notion that a full revolution may have occurred.3 The following statement argues that a potential–or very likely–reason may be found in the methodological approaches to the studies, both in terms of design and in the analysis of data generated.
Ruggeri K, Maguire Á, Cook G. The “Next Big Thing” in Treatment for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma May Be Held Back by Design—Between the Lines. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(11):1405-1406. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1782