ReviewClinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia2016
Prognosis of Primary Myelofibrosis in the Genomic Era.
Review in Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extreme Thrombocytosis in Patients with Overt Myelofibrosis and Its Clinical Associations.Cancers · 2025Article
- Ikaros Deletions among Bulgarian Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia/Lymphoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Splenomegaly impacts prognosis in essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera: A single center study.Hematology reports · 2019Article
- MIPSS70+ v2.0 predicts long-term survival in myelofibrosis after allogeneic HCT with the Flu/Mel conditioning regimen.Blood advances · 2019Article
- The New Genomics: What Molecular Databases Can Tell Us About Human Population Variation and Endocrine Disease.Endocrinology · 2017Review
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
Abstract
Currently, prognostication in primary myelofibrosis (PMF) relies on the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS), dynamic IPSS (DIPSS), and DIPSS-plus, which incorporate age, blood counts, constitutional symptoms, circulating blasts, red cell transfusion need, and karyotype. Although the JAK2 V617F mutation was discovered a decade ago and MPL mutations shortly thereafter, it was the recent discovery of CALR mutations in the vast majority of JAK2/MPL-unmutated patients and recognition of the powerful impact of CALR mutations and triple-negative (JAK2/MPL/CALR-negative) status on outcome that set the stage for revision of traditional prognostic models to include molecular information. Additionally, the advent of next-generation sequencing has identified a host of previously unrecognized somatic mutations across hematologic malignancies. As in the myelodysplastic syndromes, the majority of common and prognostically informative mutations in PMF affect epigenetic regulation and mRNA splicing. Thus, a need has arisen to incorporate mutational information on genes such as ASXL1 and SRSF2 into risk stratification systems. Mutations in yet other genes appear to be important players in leukemic transformation, and new insights into disease pathogenesis are emerging. Finally, the number of prognostically detrimental mutations may affect both survival and response to ruxolitinib, which has significant implications for clinical decision making. In this review, we briefly summarize the prognostic models in use today and discuss in detail the somatic mutations commonly encountered in patients with PMF, along with their prognostic implications and role in leukemic transformation. Emerging prognostic models that incorporate new molecular information into existing systems or exclude clinical variables are also presented.
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.