ReviewInternational journal of clinical oncology2014
Novel therapeutic strategies using hypomethylating agents in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome.
Review in International journal of clinical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Factors associated with hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) among patients in a population-based study of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in Minnesota.Annals of hematology · 2015Article
- Acquired resistance to decitabine and cross-resistance to gemcitabine during the long-term treatment of human HCT116 colorectal cancer cells with decitabine.Oncology letters · 2015Article
- Spotlight on decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes in Chinese patients.OncoTargets and therapy · 2015Review
- STAT3 signaling pathway is involved in decitabine induced biological phenotype regulation of acute myeloid leukemia cells.American journal of translational research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a clonal hematopoietic neoplasm with high rates of leukemic transformation. MDS had been an intractable disease for which the mainstream of therapeutic approach was best supportive care. Recently, however, treatment of hematological malignancies has benefited from advances in molecular targeted drug discovery such as the revolutionary drug imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia, and from the reappraisal of forgotten drugs such as thalidomide for multiple myeloma. Two azanucleotide drugs, azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine, were created as anti-neoplastic drugs in the 1960s with little success. In the 1980s, they were reassessed as hypomethylating agents (HMAs), and the introduction of low-dose schedules of them has shown dramatic effects in the delay of leukemic evolution for high-risk MDS. AZA was approved in Japan in March 2011 and has become a standard drug of choice in the treatment of high-risk MDS. Its position as a treatment for low-risk MDS remains to be established. Only half of patients with high-risk MDS can gain benefit from AZA. For example, those with complex karyotypes experience only a limited extension in survival. In addition, AZA resistance develops sooner or later. To achieve a more sustained disease control of high-risk MDS, the combined use of HMAs with other therapeutic approaches will be inevitable. Clinical trials of histone deacetylase inhibitors, lenalidomide, thrombopoietin agonists, or anticancer drugs in combination with HMAs are ongoing. In addition, HMAs are being used as a bridging therapy prior to allogeneic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) and the salvage therapy of relapsed disease after AHSCT. Thus, HMAs will continue to be key drugs for the management of MDS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.