ReviewThe oncologist2016
Where to Turn for Second-Line Cytoreduction After Hydroxyurea in Polycythemia Vera?
Review in The oncologist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Hydroxyurea Induces Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Senescence and Modifies Cell Functionality In Vitro.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Recent Progress in Interferon Therapy for Myeloid Malignancies.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThe goals of therapy in patients with polycythemia vera (PV) are to improve disease-related symptoms, prevent the incidence or recurrence of thrombosis, and possibly delay or prevent the transformation into myelofibrosis or acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Cytoreductive therapies have been used in older patients and those with a history of thrombosis to achieve these goals. Hydroxyurea (HU) remains the first-line cytoreductive choice; however, up to one in four patients treated with HU over time will develop resistance or intolerance to HU. More importantly, patients who fail HU have a 5.6-fold increase in mortality and a 6.8-fold increase risk of transformation to myelofibrosis or AML; therefore, alternative therapies are needed for these patients. Interferon-α has been used in PV and has shown significant activity in achieving hematologic responses and decreasing JAK2 V617F mutation allele burden. JAK inhibition has also been investigated and recently garnered regulatory approval for this indication. In this review, we will discuss the current treatment options that are available for patients after HU and the novel therapies that are currently under investigation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The outcomes of PV patients who fail or who are intolerant of hydroxyurea are poor. Although pegylated interferon can be considered in younger patients, currently, ruxolitinib is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved agent in this setting, representing a viable option, leading to hematocrit control and a reduction in spleen size and constitutional symptoms. Although a small number of patients will achieve a molecular response with continuous treatment, the implications of such response on the clinical outcomes are still unknown. Patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with ruxolitinib, or who lose their response, can be treated with low-dose busulfan or pipobroman; however, they should be encouraged to participate in trials with novel therapies.
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.