Observational studyMedicine2014
Retrospective comparison of fludarabine in combination with intermediate-dose cytarabine versus high-dose cytarabine as consolidation therapies for acute myeloid leukemia.
Observational study in Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective study compared efficacy and safety of fludarabine combined with intermediate-dose cytarabine (FA regimen) versus high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC regimen) as consolidation therapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients who achieved complete remission. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) based on age (≥ 60, <60 years) and cytogenetics were evaluated from data between January 2005 and March 2013. Total 82 patients (FA, n = 45; HiDAC, n = 37; 14-65 years) were evaluated. Five-year DFS was 32.0% and 36.2% for FA and HiDAC groups, respectively (P = 0.729), and 5-year OS was 39.5% and 47.8% (P = 0.568), respectively. Among older patients (≥ 60 years), 3-year DFS was 26.0% for FA group and 12.5% for HiDAC group (P = 0.032), and 3-year OS was 34.6% and 12.5%, respectively (P = 0.026). In FA group, hematological toxicities were significantly lower. FA regimen was as effective as HiDAC regimen in patients with good/intermediate cytogenetics and significantly improved DFS and OS in older patients.
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.