ReviewThe oncologist2015
Molecular Testing in Myelodysplastic Syndromes for the Practicing Oncologist: Will the Progress Fulfill the Promise?
Review in The oncologist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of chromatin accessibility associated with azacitidine response in higher-risk myelodysplastic neoplasms.iScience · 2025Article
- Evidence-Based Minireview: Molecular precision and clinical uncertainty: should molecular profiling be routinely used to guide risk stratification in MDS?Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2021Review
- Clinical Management of Anemia in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes: An Update on Emerging Therapeutic Options.Cancer management and research · 2021Review
- Getting personal with myelodysplastic syndromes: is now the right time?Expert review of hematology · 2019Review
- Therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes-specific risk stratification: are we putting the cart before the horse?Leukemia · 2017Article
- Risk stratification in therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Review
- Article
- Improving Prognostic Modeling in Myelodysplastic Syndromes.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2016Review
- 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledMyelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are heterogeneous hematopoietic neoplasms that are driven by somatically acquired genetic mutations and epigenetic alterations. Accurate risk stratification is essential for delivery of risk-adaptive therapeutic interventions. The current prognostic tools sum the impact of clinical, pathologic, and laboratory parameters. Newer technologies with next-generation targeted deep sequencing and whole-genome and -exome sequencing have identified several recurrent mutations that play a vital role in the pathophysiology of MDS and the impact of these genetic changes on disease phenotype. Equally important, well-annotated databases of MDS patients with paired clinicopathologic and genetic data have enabled better understanding of the independent prognostic impact of several molecular mutations on important clinical endpoints such as overall survival and probability of leukemic progression. Cumulative evidence suggests that genomic data can also be used clinically to aid with the diagnosis, prognosis, prediction of response to specific therapies, and the development of novel and rationally targeted therapies. However, the optimal use of this mutational profiling remains a work in progress and currently there is no standard set of genes or techniques that are recommended for routine use in the clinic. In this review, we discuss the genomic revolution and its impact on our understanding of MDS biology and risk stratification. We also discuss the current role and the challenges of the application of genetic mutational data into daily clinical practice and how future research could help improve the prognostication precision and specific therapy selection for patients with MDS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Heterogeneity in clinical outcomes of MDS is partly related to interpatient variability of recurrent somatic mutations that drive disease phenotype and progression. Although clinical risk stratification tools have functioned well in prognostication for patients with MDS, their ability to predict clinical benefits of specific MDS therapies is limited. Molecular testing shows promise in aiding diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapy-specific benefit prediction for MDS patients. Nonetheless, logistical issues related to assay performance standardization, validation, interpretation, and development of guidelines for how to use the results to inform clinical decisions are yet to be resolved.
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.