Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26464171›Full record

ArticleLeukemia2016

Comparison of risk stratification tools in predicting outcomes of patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes treated with azanucleosides.

A M Zeidan, M A Sekeres, G Garcia-Manero, D P Steensma, K Zell, J Barnard, N A Ali, C Zimmerman, G Roboz, A DeZern and 8 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Leukemia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Real-World Validation of Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System for Myelodysplastic Syndromes.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. New investigational combinations for higher-risk MDS.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2022
    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.

A M ZeidanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Hematology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
M A SekeresLeukemia Program, Department of Translational Hematology and Oncology Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
G Garcia-ManeroDepartment of leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
D P SteensmaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
K ZellLeukemia Program, Department of Translational Hematology and Oncology Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
J BarnardLeukemia Program, Department of Translational Hematology and Oncology Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
N A AliDepartment of Malignant Hematology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
C ZimmermanLeukemia Program, Department of Translational Hematology and Oncology Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
G RobozDepartment of Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.
A DeZernDepartment of Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
A NazhaLeukemia Program, Department of Translational Hematology and Oncology Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
E JabbourDepartment of leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
H KantarjianDepartment of leukemia, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
S D GoreDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Hematology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
J P MaciejewskiLeukemia Program, Department of Translational Hematology and Oncology Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
A ListDepartment of Malignant Hematology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
R KomrokjiDepartment of Malignant Hematology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
MDS Clinical Research Consortium

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
Targeting Epigenomics in Myeloid NeoplasmsK24CA111717 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI GORE, STEVEN D · 2005 to 2015
$1.7M
Advancing Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Bone Marrow FailureK23HL123601 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DEZERN, AMY E · 2014 to 2017
$637k
NCI NIH HHS K24 CA111717NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL123601NHLBI NIH HHS L30 HL109861
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Established prognostic tools in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) were largely derived from untreated patient cohorts. Although azanucleosides are standard therapies for higher-risk (HR)-MDS, the relative prognostic performance of existing prognostic tools among patients with HR-MDS receiving azanucleoside therapy is unknown. In the MDS Clinical Research Consortium database, we compared the prognostic utility of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), revised IPSS (IPSS-R), MD Anderson Prognostic Scoring System (MDAPSS), World Health Organization-based Prognostic Scoring System (WPSS) and the French Prognostic Scoring System (FPSS) among 632 patients who presented with HR-MDS and were treated with azanucleosides as the first-line therapy. Median follow-up from diagnosis was 15.7 months. No prognostic tool predicted the probability of achieving an objective response. Nonetheless, all five tools were associated with overall survival (OS, P=0.025 for the IPSS, P=0.011 for WPSS and P<0.001 for the other three tools). The corrected Akaike Information Criteria, which were used to compare OS with the different prognostic scoring systems as covariates (lower is better) were 4138 (MDAPSS), 4156 (FPSS), 4196 (IPSS-R), 4186 (WPSS) and 4196 (IPSS). Patients in the highest-risk groups of the prognostic tools had a median OS from diagnosis of 11-16 months and should be considered for up-front transplantation or experimental approaches.

Indexed as

AgedAntineoplastic AgentsAzacitidineDatabases, FactualDecitabineFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyelodysplastic SyndromesPrognosisResearch DesignRisk FactorsSurvival AnalysisAntineoplastic AgentsAzacitidineDecitabine

Identifiers

PMID26464171
PMCPMC4775363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.