ArticleOncology letters2017
Personalized therapy tests for the monitoring of chronic lymphocytic leukemia development.
Article in Oncology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flow cytometry-based targeted diagnostics for rapid assessment of daunorubicin resistance in acute myeloid leukemia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Molecular Targets of Natural Compounds with Anti-Cancer Properties.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Implications of Oxidative Stress in Glioblastoma Multiforme Following Treatment with Purine Derivatives.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Antileukemic activity of novel adenosine derivatives.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Dose and drug changes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia cell response in vitro: A comparison of standard therapy regimens with two novel cyclin‑dependent kinase inhibitors.Molecular medicine reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is individual variation in the course of disease development and response to therapy of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Novel treatment options for CLL include a new generation of purine analogs, antibodies and inhibitors of specific cell signaling pathways, which typically induce apoptosis or necrosis. A prospective analysis of patient blood samples revealed that a combination of four tests allowed the most appropriate and effective type of treatment to be selected prior to drug administration, and for the analysis of leukemic cell sensitivity to anticancer drug(s) during disease development. The comparative analysis of blood from the stable and progressive form of CLL in an individual patient revealed diversity in the response to anticancer agents. CLL peripheral blood mononuclear cells were incubated with cladribine + mafosfamide (CM), fludarabine + mafosfamide, CM + rituximab, rituximab alone (Rit) or kinetin riboside (RK). A combination of cell viability, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) profiles of nuclear preparations and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP-1) protein expression analysis of the leukemic cells was performed to evaluate the anticancer effects of the tested agents during CLL development. The results of the present study indicate that such studies are effective in determining the most appropriate anticancer drug and could monitor disease progression on an individual level. In addition, the results of the current study suggest that CLL progression leads to diversification of the cellular drug response. The most efficient apoptosis inducer for the patient was purine analog RK when the disease was stable, while the CM combination was the most effective agent for the progressive form of disease.
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.