ReviewCurrent hematologic malignancy reports2017
New Treatment Strategies for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.
Review in Current hematologic malignancy reports, 2017. 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.
- Trial
- Article
- Translational advances in the treatment of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: narrative review of current and emerging molecular and immunotherapies.Translational pediatrics · 2023Review
- Comparison of Anticancer Drug Toxicities: Paradigm Shift in Adverse Effect Profile.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- [Comparison of autologous versus matched sibling donor stem cell transplantation for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2020Article
- BCL2 inhibitor ABT-199 and JNK inhibitor SP600125 exhibit synergistic cytotoxicity against imatinib-resistant Ph+ ALL cells.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2018Article
- Advances in biology of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and therapeutic implications.American journal of blood research · 2018Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo review recent studies that address important questions regarding the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive ALL. RECENT
findingsLess intensive non-myelosuppressive induction approaches can produce comparable anti-leukemic responses with less toxicity. Second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are not clearly associated with superior outcomes compared to imatinib. Ponatinib is associated with lower early relapse rates, but has additional vascular risks. Patients achieving complete molecular response (CMR) appear to have comparable survivals with chemotherapy + TKI alone as compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT). In contrast, those not achieving CMR have superior outcomes with alloSCT. There is no clear evidence of benefit for post-transplant TKI therapy. Patients resistant to chemotherapy + TKIs may respond to blinatumomab or inotuzumab; these agents may also convert some patients to CMR. Future studies should further explore the potential of ponatinib and antibody-based therapies to more precisely define optimal molecular responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28243848What 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.