ArticleInternational journal of oncology2008
Central review of cytogenetics is necessary for cooperative group correlative and clinical studies of adult acute leukemia: the Cancer and Leukemia Group B experience.
Article in International journal of oncology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phase 3 randomized trial of chemotherapy with or without oblimersen in older AML patients: CALGB 10201 (Alliance).Blood advances · 2021Trial
- A precision medicine classification for treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in older patients.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2021Trial
- Randomized trial of 10 days of decitabine ± bortezomib in untreated older patients with AML: CALGB 11002 (Alliance).Blood advances · 2018Trial
- Prognostic and biologic significance of long non-coding RNA profiling in younger adults with cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia.Haematologica · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Expression and prognostic impact of lncRNAs in acute myeloid leukemia.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014Trial
- Trial
- RUNX1 mutations are associated with poor outcome in younger and older patients with cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia and with distinct gene and MicroRNA expression signatures.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2012Trial
- Trial
- TET2 mutations improve the new European LeukemiaNet risk classification of acute myeloid leukemia: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2011Trial
- Article
- Improving risk stratification for 2022 European LeukemiaNet favorable-risk patients with acute myeloid leukemia.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- High early death rates, treatment resistance, and short survival of Black adolescents and young adults with AML.Blood advances · 2022Article
- Clinical and molecular relevance of genetic variants in the non-coding transcriptome of patients with cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia.Haematologica · 2022Article
- Molecular, clinical, and prognostic implications of PTPN11 mutations in acute myeloid leukemia.Blood advances · 2022Article
- Comparison of clinical and molecular characteristics of patients with acute myeloid leukemia and either TP73 or TP53 mutations.Leukemia · 2021Article
- Gene expression signature predicts relapse in adult patients with cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia.Blood advances · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Cancer and Leukemia Group B has performed central review of karyotypes submitted by institutional cytogenetics laboratories from patients with acute myeloid (AML) and acute lymphoblastic (ALL) leukemia since 1986. We assessed the role of central karyotype review in maintaining accurate, high quality cytogenetic data for clinical and translational studies using two criteria: the proportion of karyotypes rejected (i.e. inadequate), and, among accepted (i.e. adequate) cases, the proportion of karyotypes whose interpretation was changed on central karyotype review. We compared the first four years during which central karyotype review was performed with a recent 4-year period and found that the proportion of rejected samples decreased significantly for both AML and ALL. However, during the latter period, central karyotype reviews still found 8% of AML and 16% of ALL karyotypes inadequate. Among adequate cases, the karyotype was revised in 26% of both AML and ALL samples. Some revisions resulted in changing the patients' assignment to particular World Health Organization diagnostic categories and/or moving patients from one prognostic group to another. Overall, when both data on rejection rates and data on karyotype revisions made in accepted cases were considered together, 32% of AML and 38% of ALL samples submitted were either rejected or revised on central karyotype review during the recent 4-year period. These data underscore the necessity of continued central karyotype review in multi-institutional cooperative group studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18636143PMC3607284What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.