ArticleOncology letters2017
Novel homobarringtonie-containing therapy for the treatment of patients with primary acute myeloid leukemia that are resistant to conventional therapy.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting Glutamine Metabolism and Redox State for Leukemia Therapy.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study investigated the efficacy and safety of a novel treatment regime consisting of homobarringtonie, cytosine arabinoside and etoposide (HCE) for the treatment of primary acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In the present study, 141 patients diagnosed with AML were divided into the HCE (n=47) and the conventional AML therapy, consisting of idamycin combined with cytarabine (IA; n=94), treatment groups. The measured patient outcome parameters were the emission and response rates, as well as medication-induced adverse events, with a median follow-up time of 28 months. There was no significant difference in the 3-year relapse-free survival rate between the HCE and IA treatment groups. The occurrence and severity of hematological or non-hematological toxicity did not differ between the two groups. However, of the 26 patients that demonstrated a poor response to the IA treatment, 19 cases were administered the HCE treatment and 14 of these patients achieved complete remission (CR). Of the 10 patients that demonstrated a poor response to the HCE treatment, 8 patients were administered the IA treatment and 7 of these achieved CR. Therefore, HCE may be an effective treatment regimen for patients with primary AML. As there was no cross-resistance between the HCE and IA regimens, HCE may be an alternative option for patients that respond poorly to IA induction therapy.
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.