Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28386105›Full record

ReviewLeukemia2017

Measurable residual disease testing in acute myeloid leukaemia.

C S Hourigan, R P Gale, N J Gormley, G J Ossenkoppele, R B Walter

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Leukemia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 141 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
141citing papers in PubMed
20.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

141 citing papers in PubMed, 231 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Measurable Residual Disease.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  5. Cancers · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Peri-transplant conundrums: optimizing maintenance therapy using MRD-directed approaches.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

81 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

C S HouriganMyeloid Malignancies Section, Hematology Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
R P GaleHaematology Research Centre, Division of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
N J GormleyDivision of Hematology Products, Office of Hematology and Oncology Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
G J OssenkoppeleDivision of Hematology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R B WalterClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLImperial College London · GBNational Heart Lung and Blood Institute · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Detection, prevention and treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapse.ZIAHL006163 · NHLBI · NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE · PI HOURIGAN, CHRISTOPHER · 2013 to 2023
$21.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is considerable interest in developing techniques to detect and/or quantify remaining leukaemia cells termed measurable or, less precisely, minimal residual disease (MRD) in persons with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) in complete remission defined by cytomorphological criteria. An important reason for AML MRD-testing is the possibility of estimating the likelihood (and timing) of leukaemia relapse. A perfect MRD-test would precisely quantify leukaemia cells biologically able and likely to cause leukaemia relapse within a defined interval. AML is genetically diverse and there is currently no uniform approach to detecting such cells. Several technologies focused on immune phenotype or cytogenetic and/or molecular abnormalities have been developed, each with advantages and disadvantages. Many studies report a positive MRD-test at diverse time points during AML therapy identifies persons with a higher risk of leukaemia relapse compared with those with a negative MRD-test even after adjusting for other prognostic and predictive variables. No MRD-test in AML has perfect sensitivity and specificity for relapse prediction at the cohort- or subject levels and there are substantial rates of false-positive and -negative tests. Despite these limitations, correlations between MRD-test results and relapse risk have generated interest in MRD-test result-directed therapy interventions. However, convincing proof that a specific intervention will reduce relapse risk in persons with a positive MRD-test is lacking and needs testing in randomized trials. Routine clinical use of MRD-testing requires further refinements and standardization/harmonization of assay platforms and results reporting. Such data are needed to determine whether results of MRD-testing can be used as a surrogate end point in AML therapy trials. This could make drug-testing more efficient and accelerate regulatory approvals. Although MRD-testing in AML has advanced substantially, much remains to be done.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDrug and Narcotic ControlDrug DiscoveryHumansLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteNeoplasm, ResidualRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID28386105
OpenAlexW2604474002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.