Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22212965›Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings2012

One thousand patients with primary myelofibrosis: the mayo clinic experience.

Ayalew Tefferi, Terra L Lasho, Thitina Jimma, Christy M Finke, Naseema Gangat, Rakhee Vaidya, Kebede H Begna, Aref Al-Kali, Rhett P Ketterling, Curtis A Hanson and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

123 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2016
    Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ayalew TefferiDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. tefferi.ayalew@mayo.edu
Terra L Lasho
Thitina Jimma
Christy M Finke
Naseema Gangat
Rakhee Vaidya
Kebede H Begna
Aref Al-Kali
Rhett P Ketterling
Curtis A Hanson
Animesh Pardanani

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo share our decades of experience with primary myelofibrosis and underscore the importance of outcomes research studies in designing clinical trials and interpreting their results. PATIENTS AND

methodsOne thousand consecutive patients with primary myelofibrosis seen at Mayo Clinic between November 4, 1977, and September 1, 2011, were considered. The International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), dynamic IPSS (DIPSS), and DIPSS-plus were applied for risk stratification. Separate analyses were included for patients seen at time of referral (N=1000), at initial diagnosis (N=340), and within or after 1 year of diagnosis (N=660).

resultsTo date, 592 deaths and 68 leukemic transformations have been documented. Parameters at initial diagnosis vs time of referral included median age (66 vs 65 years), male sex (61% vs 62%), red cell transfusion need (24% vs 38%), hemoglobin level less than 10 g/dL (38% vs 54%), platelet count less than 100 × 10(9)/L (18% vs 26%), leukocyte count more than 25 × 10(9)/L (13% vs 16%), marked splenomegaly (21% vs 31%), constitutional symptoms (29% vs 34%), and abnormal karyotype (31% vs 41%). Mutational frequencies were 61% for JAK2V617F, 8% for MPLW515, and 4% for IDH1/2. DIPSS-plus risk distributions at time of referral were 10% low, 15% intermediate-1, 37% intermediate-2, and 37% high. The corresponding median survivals were 17.5, 7.8, 3.6, and 1.8 years vs 20.0, 14.3, 5.3, and 1.7 years for patients younger than 60 years of age. Compared with both DIPSS and IPSS, DIPSS-plus showed better discrimination among risk groups. Five-year leukemic transformation rates were 6% and 21% in low- and high-risk patients, respectively.

conclusionThe current document should serve as a valuable resource for patients and physicians and provides context for the design and interpretation of clinical trials.

Indexed as

Cell Transformation, NeoplasticPrimary MyelofibrosisAgedAge FactorsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansLeukemiaMaleMiddle AgedMinnesotaPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSurvival AnalysisTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID22212965
PMCPMC3538387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.