Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28045960›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Modelling Predictors of Molecular Response to Frontline Imatinib for Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia.

Haneen Banjar, Damith Ranasinghe, Fred Brown, David Adelson, Trent Kroger, Tamara Leclercq, Deborah White, Timothy Hughes, Naeem Chaudhri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

9 authors.

Haneen BanjarSchool of Computer Science, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4475-4878
Damith RanasingheSchool of Computer Science, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Fred BrownSchool of Computer Science, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
David AdelsonSchool of Molecular and Biomedical Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Trent KrogerSchool of Computer Science, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Tamara LeclercqCancer Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide. South Australia, Australia.
Deborah WhiteCancer Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide. South Australia, Australia.
Timothy HughesCancer Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide. South Australia, Australia.
Naeem ChaudhriKing Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Oncology Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment of patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) has become increasingly difficult in recent years due to the variety of treatment options available and challenge deciding on the most appropriate treatment strategy for an individual patient. To facilitate the treatment strategy decision, disease assessment should involve molecular response to initial treatment for an individual patient. Patients predicted not to achieve major molecular response (MMR) at 24 months to frontline imatinib may be better treated with alternative frontline therapies, such as nilotinib or dasatinib. The aims of this study were to i) understand the clinical prediction 'rules' for predicting MMR at 24 months for CML patients treated with imatinib using clinical, molecular, and cell count observations (predictive factors collected at diagnosis and categorised based on available knowledge) and ii) develop a predictive model for CML treatment management. This predictive model was developed, based on CML patients undergoing imatinib therapy enrolled in the TIDEL II clinical trial with an experimentally identified achieving MMR group and non-achieving MMR group, by addressing the challenge as a machine learning problem. The recommended model was validated externally using an independent data set from King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Saudi Arabia. PRINCIPLE

findingsThe common prognostic scores yielded similar sensitivity performance in testing and validation datasets and are therefore good predictors of the positive group. The G-mean and F-score values in our models outperformed the common prognostic scores in testing and validation datasets and are therefore good predictors for both the positive and negative groups. Furthermore, a high PPV above 65% indicated that our models are appropriate for making decisions at diagnosis and pre-therapy. Study limitations include that prior knowledge may change based on varying expert opinions; hence, representing the category boundaries of each predictive factor could dramatically change performance of the models.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsAntineoplastic AgentsCell CountCohort StudiesDasatinibFemaleHumansImatinib MesylateInhibitory Concentration 50Kaplan-Meier EstimateLeukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL PositiveMachine LearningAntineoplastic AgentsDasatinibImatinib MesylatenilotinibPyrimidines

Identifiers

PMID28045960
PMCPMC5207707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.