Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24912430›Full record

ArticleLeukemia2015

Early assessment of minimal residual disease in AML by flow cytometry during aplasia identifies patients at increased risk of relapse.

T Köhnke, D Sauter, K Ringel, E Hoster, R P Laubender, M Hubmann, S K Bohlander, P M Kakadia, S Schneider, A Dufour and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Leukemia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prognostic value of CD56 in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Acute Myeloid Leukemia-Use of Measurable Residual Disease to Improve Outcomes.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Novel Tools for Diagnosis and Monitoring of AML.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023
    Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Methods of Detection of Measurable Residual Disease in AML.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2017
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

T KöhnkeDepartment of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
D SauterDepartment of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
K RingelDepartment of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
E Hoster1] Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany [2] Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
R P LaubenderInstitute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
M HubmannDepartment of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
S K Bohlander1] Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany [2] Department of Human Genetics, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
P M KakadiaDepartment of Human Genetics, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
S SchneiderDepartment of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
A DufourDepartment of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
M-C SauerlandInstitute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
W E BerdelDepartment of Internal Medicine IIIA, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
T BüchnerDepartment of Internal Medicine IIIA, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
B WörmannGerman Society of Hematology and Oncology (DGHO), Berlin, Germany.
J BraessDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Barmherzige Brüder Hospital, Regensburg, Germany.
W Hiddemann1] Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany [2] Clinical Cooperation Group Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Helmholtz Zentrum Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich, Germany.
K Spiekermann1] Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany [2] Clinical Cooperation Group Acute Myeloid Leukemia, Helmholtz Zentrum Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich, Germany [3] German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany [4] German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
M Subklewe1] Department of Internal Medicine III, University of Munich, Munich, Germany [2] Clinical Cooperation Group Immunotherapy, Helmholtz Zentrum Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversity of Münster · DEDeutsche Gesellschaft für Hämatologie und Medizinische Onkologie · DEKrankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder · DEPhilipps University of Marburg · DEZimmer Biomet (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry (flow MRD) after induction and consolidation therapy has been shown to provide independent prognostic information. However, data on the value of earlier flow MRD assessment are lacking. Therefore, the value of flow MRD detection was determined during aplasia in 178 patients achieving complete remission after treatment according to AMLCG (AML Cooperative Group) induction protocols. Flow MRD positivity during aplasia predicted poor outcome (5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) 16% vs 43%, P<0.001) independently from age and cytogenetic risk group (hazard ratio for MRD positivity 1.71; P=0.009). Importantly, the prognosis of patients without detectable MRD was neither impacted by morphological blast count during aplasia nor by MRD status postinduction. Early flow MRD was also evaluated in the context of existing risk factors. Flow MRD was prognostic within the intermediate cytogenetic risk group (5-year RFS 15% vs 37%, P=0.016) as well as for patients with normal karyotype and NPM1 mutations (5-year RFS 13% vs 49%, P=0.02) or FLT3-ITD (3-year RFS rates 9% vs 44%, P=0.016). Early flow MRD assessment can improve current risk stratification approaches by prediction of RFS in AML and might facilitate adaptation of postremission therapy for patients at high risk of relapse.

Indexed as

AgedBone MarrowBone Marrow CellsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFlow CytometryHumansKaryotypingLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteLeukocytes, MononuclearMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm, ResidualNuclear ProteinsNucleophosminNPM1 protein, humanNuclear ProteinsNucleophosmin

Identifiers

PMID24912430
OpenAlexW2078041280

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.